Pandurang S/O. Timmanna Bhandari vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10944 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

              CRL.RP.NO.100207 OF 2021
BETWEEN

1.    PANDURANG S/O. TIMMANNA BHANDARI
      AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O.DIVGI, TQ. KUMTA-581332

2.    KAMALAKANT S/O. NARAYAN BHANDARI
      AGE. 74 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. RATHABEEDI,
      TQ. HONNAVAR-581334

3.    GANESH S/O.KAMALKANT BHANDARI
      AGE. 30 YEARS,
      OCC. AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. RATHABEEDI,
      TQ. HONNAVAR-581334
                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND
      STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THROUGH HONAVAR POLICE STATION
      REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      DHARWAD

                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
                                  2




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 AND

401 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND

ORDER DATED 24.08.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS   JUDGE,UTTARA     KANNADA,        KARWAR     IN   CRIMINAL

APPEAL   NO.77/2010    WHEREBY       APPEAL   PREFERRED      BY    THE

PETITIONERS IS ONLY PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREBY CONFIRMED

THE CONVICTION ORDER 19.06.2010 PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC

HONAVAR    IN   C.C.   NO.271/2009      BUT   ONLY   SENTENCE       IS

MODIFIED BY REDUCING THE SENTENCE TO 9 MONTHS (TRIAL

COURT HAD IMPOSED 1 YEAR) WITH FINE, FOR THE OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE U/S 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. JMFC,

HONAVAR IN C.C. NO 271/2009 DATED 19.06.2010 WHEREBY

CONVICTED THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE ABOVE SAID

OFFENCES   BY    IMPOSING    1       YEAR   SENTENCE    AND       FINE,

CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3

AGAINST THE ALL CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                          ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 397 R/W

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' for short) for setting

aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the Prl. JMFC, Honnavar in CC No.271/2009 dated

19.06.2010 and modified by the Prl. District and Session

Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar in Crl. Appeal No.77/2010

dated 24.08.2021.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

3. The ranks of the parties before the trial court are

retained for the purpose of convenience of this Court.

4. The case of the prosecution is that Honnavar

Police filed charge sheet against accused nos.1 to 3 for the

offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 23.03.2009 at

3.30 pm at Gundibail, accused nos.1 to 3 with an intention to

assault complainant and her husband came to the house of

complainant and asked whether her husband is in house.

When she said he is not in house, they dragged her out, torn

her nighty and assaulted on her with club and abused her in

filthy language. At that time, her husband came. Accused

no.2 also assaulted the husband of the complainant with a

wooden reaper and caused injuries and threatened with dire

consequences. After registering the case, accused were

arrested and released on bail. After filing charge sheet,

cognizance was taken by trial court and the charges were

framed against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 6

witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked the documents as per

Ex.P1 to P4 and M.O.s 1 to 4 are marked. After closing

evidence, the statements of accused under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused did not choose to lead

either oral evidence or documentary evidence. After hearing

the arguments, trial court find the accused guilty for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced the accused

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and

to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to pay fine amount

to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one

month. Accused also sentenced the accused to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine

of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504

of IPC and in default to pay find amount to undergo further

simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused also

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence

punishable under Section 506 of IPC and in default to pay fine

amount, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period

of one month. Learned Magistrate further ordered that all the

sentences shall run concurrently. However, they filed appeal

before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge modified

the sentence by reducing one year imprisonment for nine

months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and one year

to six months for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of

IPC. Assailing the same, petitioners are before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

the judgment of both the Courts not sustainable in law and

they are not properly appreciated the evidence on record.

There is a civil dispute pending between the parties and

accused took possession of the property from the

complainant. In order to take revenge against the accused

complainant party foisted a false case against the accused in

collusion with the Police.

7. Learned counsel further contended that, if at all

conviction is not set aside, the sentence of imprisonment may

be modified and impose fine as accused and complainant are

all cousin brothers and incident was took place long back in

the year 2009. Therefore, prays to set aside the judgment

and order dated 24.08.2021.

8. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously objected

and contended that the judgment of trial Court and Appellate

Court was correctly held. The offences were proved by the

prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. PWs.1 and 2 are

injured persons. PW.4 is a eye witness to the incident. PW.3

Panch witness supported the case of prosecution,PW.6-doctor

who treated the injured has also supported the case of

prosecution. Therefore, there is no error or illegality

committed by both the Courts below in convicting the

accused. Hence, prays to dismiss the revision petition.

9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the petitioners, perused the records.

10. On perusal of the same, it reveals that accused

nos.1 to 3 went to the house of PW1 on 23.03.2009 at 3.30

p.m. and enquired complainant about her husband, when she

told that her husband is not in house, they abused the

complainant in a filthy language, dragged her out and torn

her nighty and assaulted on her forehead with a stone and

caused injuries. At that time, PW.2 came there, the accused

no.2 assaulted the husband of the complainant with a wooden

reaper and caused injuries and threatened with dire

consequences. PW.1 has categorically stated in her evidence

about the assault made by the accused at the time of

incident. PW.2 her husband came and tried to rescue her. At

that time, accused no.2 assaulted him with wooden reaper.

PW.1 and PW.2 were not at all controverted by the counsel

for accused in the cross examination and PW.4 eye witness

though relative of PW.1 also supported the case. PW.3 Panch

witnesses supported the case of prosecution,PW.6-doctor who

treated the injured and also given wound certified as per

Ex.P.3 and P.4 which reveals injuries are simple in nature.

has also supported the case of prosecution. PW.5 is

investigating officer who filed the charge sheet after

investigating the matter. Considering all the aspects and

material objects, broken bangle pieces and wooden reaper,

torn nighty corroborates the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and

Ex.P1 to P4. Therefore, trial Court has rightly held that

prosecution proved the offence of all the accused beyond all

reasonable doubts and rightly convicted the accused persons.

11. First appellate Court had re-appreciated the

evidence on record and upheld the conviction order passed by

the trial Court. However, First Appellate Court modified the

sentence by reducing 9 months and 6months respectively

from one year. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court,

upheld by the First Appellate Court needs no interference by

this Court. Concurrent findings are clearly established by the

prosecution about the offence committed by the accused.

Therefore, findings of both the courts needs no interference

by this Court. However, alternative arrangement as prayed

by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that the

petitioner and the PW.2 are cousin brothers and 13 years

back incident took place. Now, they are living peacefully.

Petitioners are ready to pay sentence of fine more than the

sentence of fine imposed by the Court as against sentence of

imprisonment. Therefore, instead of sentencing and sending

the accused to the imprisonment for 9 or 6 months, by

imposing more fine for the offence, as Sections 324, 504,

506 of IPC also provides imposing fine or imprisonment or

both.

12. Therefore, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that instead of

sending the accused persons to imprisonment, if the fine is

imposed by modifying the sentence, it will meet ends of

justice. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed in part.

Findings of the Courts below are hereby upheld.

However, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and

modified as under:

Petitioners/accused nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to pay fine

of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section

504 of IPC, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo

three months simple imprisonment.

Petitioners/accused nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to pay fine

of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount,

they shall undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the

offence under Section 506 of IPC.

The petitioners/accused nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to pay

fine of R.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount,

they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

The fine amount shall be paid within 4 weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order and the amount shall be

payable after deducting the fine amount already deposited.

Out of fine amount Rs.15,000/- is ordered to be paid to

PWs.1 and 2 as compensation under Section 357 of CPC.

Remaining amount shall be remitted to the State.

Send copy of this order to the trial court to take

appropriate action.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HMB