Yellappa vs State Of Karnataka By
2021 Latest Caselaw 4896 Kant

                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.127/2012

BETWEEN:

1.     YELLAPPA,
       S/O LATE EARANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

2.     LINGAPPA,
       S/O YELLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

3.     SMT. MALAKKA,
       W/O YELLAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

       ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
       SURANAGENAHALLI,
       MADHUGIRI TALUK,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                      ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIGENAHALLI P.S.
                                      ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
                                2




     THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W
401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:6.9.10 PASSED BY THE ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC,
MADHUGIRI      IN    C.C.NO.556/09    AND    ORDER
DATED:30.9.11 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-V, MADHURIGI,
IN CRL.A.NO.112/10 AND ETC.,

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

                             ORDER

The present criminal revision petition is filed

under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., calling

in question the legality and propriety of the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence recorded in

C.C.No.556/2009 dated 06.09.2010 passed by the

Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, (hereinafter

referred to as "trial Court" for short), which is

confirmed insofar as judgment of conviction is

concerned, but sentence passed by the trial Court

came to be modified in Crl.A.No.112/2010 dated

30.09.2011 by the Fast Track-V, Madhugiri,

(hereinafter referred to as "Sessions Court" for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

There was a quarrel between the complainant

and accused with regard to land dispute and the

complaint was lodged in Crime No.82/2009 for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504

r/w Section 34 of IPC. After conducting investigation,

charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 324 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The

trial Court after full-fledged trial has convicted

accused Nos.1 to 3 as recorded below:

"Accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby convicted U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

Further accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Further accused Nos.2 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC."

3. The trial Court has passed the order of

sentence only by imposing the fine amount without

sending the petitioner/accused in jail term. Being

aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence and imposing of fine amount, accused has

preferred Crl.A.No.112/2010 before the Sessions

Court and the Sessions Court has allowed the appeal-

in-part and the order of sentence is modified as

below:

"The appeal filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C by the appellants accused persons is partly allowed.

The judgment and sentence by the trial court is hereby modified.

The accused 1 to 3 are convicted for the offence u/s 504, 324, r/w 34 of IPC.

The accused persons 1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences u/s 323 of IPC.

The accused persons 1 to 3 shall pay fine amount of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 504, r/w 34 of IPC. And they shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Out of the total fine amount of Rs.9000/- an amount of Rs.3000/- shall be paid to Pw1 and Pw2 each as compensation u/s 357 of Cr.PC. with in 30 days from the date of this order.

Issue copy of this judgment free of cost to the accused.

Send the copy of this judgment to the lower court along with lower court records. And the learned magistrate shall issue warrant to accused persons to comply with the sentence immediately."

4. The complainant is examined as P.W.1 who

is also the injured witness, P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1

and also another injured witness, P.Ws.3 and 4 are

eye witnesses to the incident, P.Ws.5 and 8 are panch

witnesses for spot panchanama, P.Ws.6 and 7 are the

revenue officials who have issued RTC of the land, in

which, incident occurred. P.W.9 is the doctor who has

examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued wound certificate.

P.W.10 is the Investigation Officer who had conducted

the investigation and filed the charge sheet. P.Ws.1,

2, 3 and 4 have supported the prosecution case.

P.W.1 himself is the injured witness. P.W.1 has

narrated the incident regarding the offences

committed by the petitioners/accused. As P.W.1

himself is the injured witness, there is no reason to

disbelieve his evidence. The P.W.2 is the injured

witness and just because, P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1,

her evidence cannot be disbelieved. P.Ws.3 and 4 are

the eye witnesses to the incident and narrated the

incident that occurred on 26.05.2009 at about 9:30

a.m., and quarrel took place between the

petitioners/accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 in the land of

P.W.1 when petitioner No.1 was ploughing the land.

The quarrel took place between them and accused

No.1 assaulted P.W.2 with sickle on the left side of his

head, due to which, she sustained bleeding injuries

and their clothes were stained with blood and accused

Nos.1 and 2 assaulted P.W.1 with club and hands on

the whole body of the complainant which is specifically

stated by P.Ws.3 and 4 in their evidence. Therefore,

witnesses have clearly deposed regarding the overt-

act of each of the accused persons. Therefore, the trial

Court did not find any discrepancy in the evidence

believed the prosecution case and accordingly,

convicted and sentenced the petitioners as above

discussed.

5. The learned Sessions Judge in criminal

appeal has re-appreciated the evidence on record and

came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

4 which are material witnesses are found to be

believable. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge

upon re-appreciation of evidence on record has

confirmed the judgment of conviction, but modified

the order of sentence as above stated.

6. Insofar as the judgment of conviction

recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by

the Sessions Court, cannot be interfered with as there

is no illegality or impropriety found. But insofar as

order of sentence is concerned, accused Nos.1, 2 and

3 were convicted for the offences punishable under

Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and further accused

No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and further

accused Nos.2 and 3 were convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

When the trial Court has recorded the order of

conviction so far as against accused No.1 only for the

offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34

of IPC. But recording conviction for accused Nos.2 and

3 is only for the offence punishable under Section 323

r/w Section 34 of IPC, but sentence imposed is not

correct to the extent that the order of sentence

recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be

interfered with. Therefore, imposing of fine amount on

accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under

Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC is not correct.

Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge insofar as imposing of fine amount of

Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under

Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC is set aside. The

State has not preferred any appeal, but without the

appeal preferred by the State, the learned Sessions

Judge has recorded the conviction in respect of

accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable

under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, which is not correct.

Hence, accordingly, it is set aside. The learned

Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for

the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC,

which is hereby confirmed.

7. Therefore, the net effect of order of

sentence is that accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to

pay fine amount for the offences punishable under

Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.1

was sentenced to pay fine amount for the offences

punishable under Sections 504 and 324 r/w Section

34 of IPC. To this extent, the order of learned

Sessions Judge is confirmed. The fine amount imposed

upon accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable

under Section 324 r/w Section 34 is set aside.

Accordingly, the State is directed to reimburse the fine

amount imposed on accused Nos.2 and 3 as stated

above.

8. With the above observations, criminal

revision petition is allowed-in-part and modified the

order of sentence as discussed above. Therefore, I

pass the following

ORDER

Criminal revision petition is allowed-in-part.

The order of sentence recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge is hereby modified to the effect that

accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable

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

whatever quantum of fine amount imposed by the

learned Sessions Judge remains intact. The fine

amount imposed on accused Nos.2 and 3 for the

offences punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34

of IPC is hereby set aside and whatever fine amount

paid by accused Nos.2 and 3 insofar as offence under

Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC shall be reimbursed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PB