Sampath @ Khajappa Kattimani And ... vs The State Through Chincholi Ps
2021 Latest Caselaw 5445 Kant

                               1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

               CRL.RP.No.200038/2014
BETWEEN:

1. SAMPATH @ KHAJAPPA
   S/O SHANKRAPPA KATTIMANI
   AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

2. RAJAPPA
   S/O SHANKRAPPA KATTIMANI

  BOTH R/O DEGALMADI
  TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. GULBARGA
                                             ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI K. ANOOR,
 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2;
 PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 IS ABATED)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH
CHINCHOLI P.S., DIST. GULBARGA
                                    ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
LEARNED    PRINCIPAL   CIVIL       JUDGE   AND   JMFC   COURT,
CHINCHOLI BY ITS JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL
2012 IN C.C.NO.219/2011 AND FURTHER THE SAME BEING
                              2




CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED IV-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT GULBARGA, IN CRL. APPEAL NO.52/2012
ORDER DATED 22ND MARCH 2014.


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


                       ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner

No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed under Section 397 r/w

Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the

judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the

learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chincholi,

in C.C.No.219/2011 and further the same being

confirmed by the judgment dated 22.03.2014 passed by

the learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Gulbarga, in Crl. Appeal No.52/2012.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that on

07.05.2010 when the complainant went to drop his

relatives to attend cradle ceremony, the accused

persons were quarreling with each other and on the

instructions of mother of accused persons, the

complainant went to pacify the said quarrel. At that

time, accused No.1 abused him in a filthy language and

picking up the stick assaulted with the same. When

P.Ws.3 and 5 came to the rescue of the complainant

who is P.W.1, accused No.2 abused them in a filthy

language and assaulted with stick.

4. The prosecution relied upon the injured

witnesses' evidence and other evidence in total P.W.1 to

12 and also got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to

P8(a). The defence side got marked Ex.D1 and two

sticks were marked as M.Os.1 and 2.

5. The Trial Court after considering both oral

and documentary evidence available on record convicted

both the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 324 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of eight months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of

IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay

fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section

504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, the appeal was filed in

Criminal Appeal No.52/2012. The appellate Court, on re-

appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence

available on record, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the

present revision petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner

No.2 would submit that both the Courts have committed

an error in convicting the accused and confirming the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The trial

Court has totally erred in appreciating the evidence of

P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 who are the injured witnesses who have

partly turned hostile and there is no corroborative

evidence. The evidence of P.W.7-doctor do not

corroborate with the case of the prosecution. Hence, it

requires interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State

would submit that the Trial Court particularly

considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 who are

injured witnesses and also evidence of P.W.7 rightly

convicted the accused and the same is also re-

appreciated by the appellate Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State

and on considering the grounds urged in the revision

petition, the point that would arise for consideration of

this Court is,

Whether it is a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., regarding legality and correctness of the finding?

10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the respective parties and also on perusal of the

material on record, it is clear that there was no motive

for committing the offence. It is also to be noted that

the incident has taken place while the accused persons

quarreling with each other and on the instructions of

mother of the accused, the complainant tried to pacify

the quarrel, the accused persons have inflicted injuries

with stick which was lying on the spot. There was no

preplan or motive. Perusal of the wound certificate at

Ex.P3 shows that injured-Santosh had sustained simple

injuries and he was inpatient for three days from

08.05.2010 to 10.05.2010. Ex.P4-wound certificate

pertaining to injured-Ismail shows that he has also

suffered simple injuries and he was not inpatient. Ex.P5-

wound certificate pertaining to injured-Kajappa shows

that he has also suffered simple injuries to his head and

he was also inpatient for a period of three days. Having

taken note of the nature of injuries and also

circumstances in which the incident has taken place and

also injured witness have supported the case of the

prosecution, I do not find any merit in the revision

petition to come to other conclusion than the one arrived

at by the Trial Court and the appellate Court. Taking

into note the circumstances in which the incident has

taken place and abruptly the petitioners have picked up

the stick which was lying on the spot and assaulted the

injured persons and considering the gravity of the

offences, it is not a fit case to sentence the petitioners

to undergo imprisonment. I find it appropriate to

impose higher fine and order to pay the fine amount to

the injured persons who took treatment at the hospital

instead of ordering for substantial sentence for

imprisonment.

11. It is brought to the notice of this Court

petitioner No.1 is no more and death certificate is also

produced.

12. In view of the discussions made above, I

pass the following:

ORDER

The revision is allowed in part. The judgment of

conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by

the appellate Court is confirmed. The order of sentence

passed by the Trial Court sentencing the accused to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight

months for the offence punishable under Section 324

r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing the accused to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

months for the offence punishable under Section 504

r/w Section 34 of IPC is set aside.

The fine amount imposed at Rs.2,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is enhanced

to Rs.15,000/- and the fine amount imposed at Rs.500/-

for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is

enhanced to Rs.2,000/-.

Petitioner No.2 is directed to pay fine amount of

Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

324 of IPC. The case against the petitioner No.1 is

abated on account of his death.

Out of the fine amount, it is ordered to pay a sum

of Rs.5,000/- each to P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 and remaining

amount of Rs.2,000/- shall vest with the State.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*