The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed u/s 378(1) and (3) Cr. P.C. praying to grant leave to appeal against that part of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2015, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge. The Court observed that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 read conjointly indicates that there is a slight dislocation of the tooth noticed by the dentist at the time of conducting the examination.
Brief Facts:
On 19.06.2011, the KSRTC bus was proceeding towards Hubli. When the bus reached near old NH-4 road, a lorry came from the opposite direction and stopped across the bus. When it was questioned by the driver of the KSRTC bus, the lorry driver got down from his lorry and started abusing in a filthy language. In the meantime, another person who was in the lorry came and assaulted with the hands and club on the head of the driver of the KSRTC, resultantly, the driver of the KSRTC bus sustained injuries on the head. In the meantime, PW.3 and some other passengers have intervened and pacified the matter. After the incident, the complainant was taken to the Government Hospital. Following the statement of the complainant, an FIR was registered. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. However, the Court recorded the acquittal for the offenses punishable under Sections 341 and 333 r/w 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Trial Court ignored in considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and recorded the acquittal in respect of offenses under Sections 341 and 333 of IPC is erroneous and the same is required to be set aside. It was further submitted that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 are material to the incident.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that even though PW.2 working as a driver of the said bus, he has not produced the wound certificate regarding the loss of his tooth. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly did not record the conviction for the offense punishable under Section 333 of IPC which is appropriate.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 read conjointly indicates that there is a slight dislocation of the tooth noticed by the dentist at the time of conducting the examination. Dislocation of tooth amounts to grievous injury.
The Court observed that when there is an expert opinion in respect of the injury, the opinion of the Court in respect of the said wound which is contrary to the expert opinion, cannot be sustained. The Trial Court ignored the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 3 and the Ex. P1 document in respect of the offenses under Section 333 of IPC. Hence, the accused No.1 is to be convicted for the offense under Section 333 of IPC.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the order of acquittal in respect of offense under Sections 341 and 333 of IPC is set aside.
Case Title: State by Police Sub Inspector v. Babu @ Jurani & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S Rachaiah
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 2015 (A)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Rai K
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Javeed S and Mr. Harish Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
