Bhaskar S/O. Parameshwar Achari vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3370 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

                  CRL.RP.NO.2058/2013

BETWEEN:

BHASKAR S/O. PARAMESHWAR ACHARI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTRY
R/O. TUDALLI, MURDESHWARA,
TQ:BHATKAL, DIST: KARWAR
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MURDESHWAR POLICE
BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. IS SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2012 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS
JUDGE AND FAST TRACK COURT-I, KARWAR IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.144/2006 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BHATKAL AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
DATED 16.09.2006 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC, BHATKAL IN C.C.NO.1726/2005.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              2




                          ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed under Section

397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of

conviction passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC,

Bhatkal in C.C.No.1726/2005 and confirmed by the District

and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-I, Karwar in

Criminal Appeal No.144/2006 dated 05.09.2012 for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 of IPC

and prayed for allowing the revision petition by setting

aside the impugned judgments of the courts below.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the trial court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that, on

25.11.2005 at 11.30 a.m. when the complainant moving

on his bicycle near Divagiri Church Cross within the limits

of Murdeshwar police station, the accused has picked up a

quarrel with him and wrongfully restrained him asserting

that he has given false information to his owner and made

him to withdraw the carpentry work entrusted to him, He

abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by stone

on his nose and also kicked him causing simple injuries to

him. In this regard, complainant has lodged a complaint.

On the basis of the complaint, investigating officer

undertook the investigation and then submitted charge

sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 of IPC. After

submission of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate

has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process

against the accused. The accused has appeared and was

enlarged on bail. Then charge was framed against him and

he pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution has examined in all 7

witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and also placed reliance on 3

documents as Exs.P1 to P3 and 2 material objects as

M.Os.1 and 2. After conclusion of the evidence of the

prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the

incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case

of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total

denial and he did not choose to lead any oral or

documentary evidence in support of his defence.

5. After hearing the arguments and perusing the

oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate

has convicted the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 of IPC. He has

imposed imprisonment for 10 days with fine of Rs.250/-

for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. Further, he has

imposed imprisonment for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/-

for the under Section 323 of IPC, and imposed

imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC and also imposed

imprisonment for 10 days with fine of Rs.500/- for the

offence under Section 504 of IPC.

      6.      Being    aggrieved      by     this    judgment     of

conviction,    the    accused    has       filed    an   appeal   in

Crl.A.No.144/2006 before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court-I, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. The learned Sessions

Judge has allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the

conviction insofar as it relates to the offence under Section

324 of IPC. However, he has confirmed the conviction

insofar as it relates to the offence punishable under

Sections 341, 323 and 504 of IPC. Being aggrieved by

these concurrent findings, the revision petitioner/accused

has filed this revision petition.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High

Court Government Pleader at length. Perused the trial

court records.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would contend that impugned judgments passed by both

the courts below are totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary

to law and against the evidence lead by the prosecution.

He would also invite the attention that the courts below

have not considered delay in filing the complaint and failed

to appreciate the fact that there are no other independent

eye-witnesses except the complainant and there is no

material evidence except self-serving testimony of the

complainant. He would also invite the attention of the

court that immediately after the incident, the complainant

did not lodge the complaint, though he has to pass

through the police station, but he preferred to go to the

hospital and later on, lodged the complaint and this delay

is not properly explained. He would also contend that

provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. are not exercised and

hence, he would seek for allowing the revision petition by

setting aside the impugned judgments. Alternatively, he

would also contend that sentence of imprisonment may be

set aside by enhancing the fine, as there is no animosity

between the parties, which is evident from the records.

9. Per contra, learned HCGP has objected the

revision petition contending that both the courts below

have appreciated oral and documentary evidence and have

arrived at a just decision. He would also contend that both

the courts below imposed a reasonable sentence and as

such, he would contend that impugned judgments do not

call for any interference by this court. Hence, he would

seek for rejection of the revision petition.

10. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that initially the trial court has

convicted the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 of IPC, but the appellate

court has confirmed the conviction insofar as it relates to

Sections 341, 323 and 504 of IPC and set aside the

conviction for the offences punishable under Section 324 of

IPC. This judgment of the appellate court is not challenged

by the State. Hence, question of considering the offence

under Section 324 of IPC now does not arise at all.

11. P.W.1 is the complainant and injured witness.

In his evidence he has re-iterated the complaint

allegations. P.W.2 is a pancha witness in respect of spot

mahazar, while P.W.3 is also an eye-witness as well as

pancha. P.W.6 is another eye-witness. P.W.5 is the doctor

who examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate as per

Ex.P3. P.Ws.4 and 7 are the police officials.

12. The complainant is examined as P.W.1 and in

his evidence he has specifically deposed that on

25.11.2005 at 11.30 a.m. while he was proceeding on his

bicycle near Church Cross at Murdeshwar, the accused

wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him questioning

that he has taken furniture work from C.W.5 and in the

said process, he abused him in vulgar language. He further

claims that he has taken treatment and lodged the

complaint. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length,

nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence. P.W.3

is an eye-witness and he has also supported the case of

the prosecution regarding assault made by the accused on

the complainant. Further, P.W.6 also deposed that accused

picked up quarrel with the complainant and assaulted him.

His evidence is consistent in this regard. The evidence of

the complainant and eye-witnesses disclose that the

accused has wrongfully restrained and kicked complainant

and assaulted by stone and also abused him in filthy

language. Now the question of considering the offence

under Section 324 of IPC does not arise at all, as the State

has not preferred any appeal. However, the evidence does

disclose that complainant has suffered simple injuries and

he was wrongfully restrained and was also abused. The

evidence is again supported by the medical evidence and

the evidence of the investigating officer. Hence, the

evidence on record clearly establish that accused has

committed the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of

IPC. Both the courts below have rightly convicted the

accused.

13. For the offence under Section 341 of IPC, the

learned Magistrate has imposed imprisonment for a period

of 10 days with fine of Rs.250/-. The said offence is

punishable with imprisonment which may extend for one

month or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or both. For

the offence under Section 323 of IPC, the learned

Magistrate has imposed imprisonment for a period of three

months with fine of Rs.500/-. The said offence is

punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one

year or fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or both.

Accordingly, for the offence under Section 504 of IPC, the

learned Magistrate has imposed imprisonment for 10 days

with fine of Rs.500/-. The said offence is punishable with

imprisonment which may extend to two years or fine or

both.

14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would contend that sentence of imprisonment may be set

aside by enhancing the fine. Learned Magistrate has also

not given proper reasons for not extending the benefit of

P.O.Act, though he has considered it. However, the

appellate court has confirmed the said conviction. The

records also disclose that both the accused and

complainant are carpenters and it is only a professional

rivalry. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused is

a habitual offender. Under these circumstances, imposition

of sentence of imprisonment appears to be harsh. Looking

to these facts and circumstances, for the offence under

Section 341 of IPC, fine of Rs.500/- will serve the purpose,

while the offence under Section 323 of IPC, fine to the

tune of Rs.1,000/- will serve the purpose. For the offence

under Section 504 of IPC, in my considered opinion, in

place of sentence of imprisonment, fine can be enhanced

to the tune of Rs.2,500/-, which will serve the purpose.

Though conviction needs to be retained, only imprisonment

needs to be set aside by enhancing the fine. Accordingly,

to this extent, revision petition needs to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal revision petition is partly allowed. The

sentence of conviction passed by both the courts below for

the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 of

IPC stand confirmed.

However, the sentence of imprisonment for the said

offences is set aside and the accused is sentenced to pay

fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 of IPC,

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one month. Further, he is directed to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

three months. Further, he has imposed fine of Rs.2,500/-

for the offence under Section under Section 504 of IPC, in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

three months.

The trial court is directed to secure the revision

petitioner/accused and recover the balance fine amount, if

any.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBS/-