Jyothi Nagappa Guddadakeri, vs Basavaraj S/O Mahadevappa ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2850 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                             PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                                AND
            THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100076/2017

Between:
Jyothi Nagappa Guddadakeri,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Household Work,
R/o. Bengaluru.
                                                        ...Appellant
(By Sri.Patil M.H., Adv.)

And:
1.     Basavaraj S/o. Mahadevappa Byalal,
       Age 32 years, R/o. Belagalapet,
       Tq. Hanagal, Dist Haveri.

2.     The State of Karnataka,
       Rep. by Hanagal Police, By S.P.P.,
       High Court Bench at Dharwad.
                                                     ...Respondents
(By Sri. K.S.Patil, Adv. for R1,
Sri.V.M.Banakar, Addl.S.P.P. for R2)

       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to the judgment and sentence passed by the I Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Haveri in S.C. No.24 of 2012 dated 31.08.2016
kindly be modified by convicting the accused/first respondent for
the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC instead of Section
324 of IPC and also enhance the fine amount.

       This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, J.M.Khazi J., delivered
the following:
                                            CRL.A. NO.100076/2017


                               2


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/victim under Section

372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated

31.08.2016 in S.C. No.24/2012 on the file of the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Haveri which was filed for the

offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC. Vide

the impugned judgment and order, the respondent

No.1/accused is convicted for the offences punishable under

Sections 504 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of

`1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC,

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and

`15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Out of

the fine amount so recovered, an amount of `10,000/- is

ordered to be paid to the appellant/victim by way of

compensation.

2. Appellant/victim has challenged the impugned

judgment and order contending that the accused is guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and instead

the Trial Court has convicted him for lesser offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC. Consequently she is seeking to CRL.A. NO.100076/2017

modify the conviction for the offence punishable under Section

307 of IPC and impose appropriate punishment and also to

enhance the fine amount.

3. After completing the investigation, the charge

sheet was filed against the respondent No.1/accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC.

However, looking to the nature of the injury sustained by the

victim, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that

the provisions of Section 307 of IPC are not attracted and on

the other hand, the offence punishable under Section 324 of

IPC is made out.

4. The learned counsel representing the

appellant/victim has contended that, though the Trial Court

has come to a correct conclusion that the prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, it has wrongly been

held that the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not

attracted. It is further submitted that on account of assault

made by the respondent No.1/accused with the knife on the

left cheek of the appellant/victim, her face is disfigured and

taking into consideration these aspects, the punishment CRL.A. NO.100076/2017

should have been imposed for the offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC. The Trial Court has come to a wrong

conclusion that the injury is not on a vital part.

5. So far as the quantum of fine is concerned, the

appellant/victim has contended that imposition of fine of

`15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC

is very much inadequate and it requires to be enhanced

alongwith substantive sentence of imprisonment.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/victim as well as the respondent No.1/accused and

also the learned Additional S.P.P.

7. Though in the appeal, the appellant/victim has

challenged the conclusion of the Trial Court that the

ingredients of Section 307 of IPC is not attracted and on the

other hand, a case under Section 324 of IPC is made out and

punishment is required to be enhanced alongwith fine amount,

during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel

representing the appellant/victim has confined his arguments

with regard to the quantum of fine imposed and also the

compensation granted to the appellant/victim.

CRL.A. NO.100076/2017

8. It is submitted that respondent No.1/accused is

working as a mason. Today he is kept present before the

Court.

9. At the time of incident, the appellant/victim was

not married. Since she sustained injury on her left cheek, it

was contended that it may become difficult for her to get

married. However, as submitted during the course of hearing,

it is found that recently the appellant/victim is married.

10. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are

of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the fine

amount for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is

increased by another sum of `15,000/- and the entire

enhanced fine amount of `15,000/- is ordered to be paid to

the appellant/victim by way of compensation.

11. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following

order:

ORDER

Appeal filed by the appellant/victim under Section 372 of

Cr.P.C. is partly allowed.

CRL.A. NO.100076/2017

The fine imposed on the respondent No.1/accused for

the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC is enhanced

by `15,000/-. In default of payment of additional fine, the

respondent No.1/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment

for one year, as directed in the impugned order.

He shall deposit the enhanced fine amount before the

Trial Court within a period of one month from today.

The entire additional fine amount of `15,000/- is

directed to be paid to the appellant/victim (PW.1) by way of

compensation.

Office is directed to supply a free copy of this order to

the respondent No.1/accused at the earliest.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Rsh