Yenkappa S/O Amarayya vs The State Through Deodurga P S
2021 Latest Caselaw 5375 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200076/2015

BETWEEN:

YENKAPPA S/O AMARAYYA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O JUTIMARADI TQ: DEODURGA
DIST: RAICHUR.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVI K ANOOR, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI AVINASH A UPLOANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH
DEODURGA P S
DIST: RAICHUR.
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP)
       THIS CRL.R.P. FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C,
BY THE REVISION PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE    JUDGMENT   PASED   BY   THE   LEARNED   JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE     FIRST   CLASS DEODURGA IN       C.C. NO.
300/2013 DATED 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015 AND ETC.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               2




                          ORDER

Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on

09.06.2021 at about 5.00 p.m. in front of the house of the

first informant at Jutmaradi village which is situated within

the limits of Deodurga police station, accused Nos.1 to 3 in

furtherance of their common intention picked up the

quarrel with the first informant and CW4 and 5 and

accused No.1 assaulted with club on the left wrist of the

first informant as a result, she sustained grievous injuries

and accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted with their hands due to

the boundary dispute and abused in a filthy language and

threatened for life. Based on the complaint, the police

have registered the case for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The accused appeared and contested the matter and the

prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and

also relied upon the documents at Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 -

club. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and

document evidence, convicted the accused No.1 for the

offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and imposed

fine of Rs.10,000/-, out of that, ordered to pay an amount

of Rs.9.000/- to PW1 and acquitted for the other offences.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, an appeal

is filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also

on re-appreciation of evidence, allowed the appeal in part

and sentence of imprisonment of three years is modified to

one year confirming the conviction for the offence under

Section 326 of IPC and fine amount was enhanced to

Rs.25,000/- out of that, ordered to pay Rs.20,000/-

compensation to the victim under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is

no independent witnesses and panch witnesses have

turned hostile and when such being the case, both the

Courts ought to have given benefit of doubt. Except

interested witness, PW1, PW2 and PW6 who are the

independent witnesses have not supported the case of he

prosecution. The doctor who has issued the wound

certificate opining that the said injury is of grievous in

nature. The probable defence taken by the accused or the

petitioner herein that it is an accidental fall by the

petitioner and the same is not accepted by the Trial Court

and same requires interference by this court.

3. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the State would submit that the injured has

been examined before the Trial Court and injured evidence

is also corroborated by PW6 - doctor evidence and apart

from that PW2 who is also eye-witness to the incident and

his evidence is consistent and does not requires any

interference.

4. Having heard the respective counsel appearing

for the parties and also on perusal of the evidence

available on record, the points that would arise for the

consideration of this court are

Whether both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the petitioner and whether

this Court can exercise the revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the legality and correctness of the offence?

5. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and

the state and also considering the charges leveled against

the petitioner herein, it is clear that due to the boundary

dispute, this incident was taken place. the Trial Court on

appreciation of the evidence acquitted the other accused

and only convicted accused No.1 in coming to the

conclusion that he only assaulted PW1 with the club. The

evidence of the doctor who has been examined as PW6

also clear that PW1 came to the hospital with the history of

assault. On examination, injuries were found and sent the

injured for x-ray to the District hospital and after obtaining

the x-ray report, he gave opinion that said injuries are

grievous in nature and issued wound certificate stating

that her wrist was fractured. Pw1 deposed that accused

No.1 assaulted with club on the left wrist of her as a result,

her left wrist was fractured. The Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence comes to

the conclusion that evidence of PW1 and PW2 is concerned

with regard to the incident and the medical evidence is

also corroborates with the evidence of PW1. No doubt,

panch witnesses have turned hostile but the evidence of

PW1 and 2 was unshaken in the cross-examination. The

Trial Court also taken note of the nature of injury and

there was a fracture and hence, invoked section 326 of

IPC. The Appellate Court also on re-appreciation comes to

the conclusion that the injured was inflicted injury with

club and no other injuries were found and reduced the

sentence from three years to one year and also the

motivate for committing this offence is with regard to the

boundary dispute between the parties. When such

material is appreciated by the Trial Court as well as re-

appreciated by the Appellate Court and also the sentence

reduced for the offence punishable under Section 326 of

IPC is also clear that the sentence will be extended up to

10 years and here is a case that sentence of three years

was reduced to one year by the Appellate Court. Hence, I

do not find any illegality committed by both the Courts in

appreciation of evidence available on record and also does

not find any error committed by both the Courts and the

Appellate Court also exercised its powers on re-

appreciation of evidence and reduced the sentence.

Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision petition to

exercise the powers under Section 397 read with section

401 of Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following

Order

The revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SAN