Karnataka High Court
Anil S/O Dinkar Takkarkar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2022
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2051/2013
BETWEEN:
1. ANIL S/O DINKAR TAKKARKAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: RYOT
R/O.MAJALI, KOTHAR, TQ: KARWAR
DIST: UKUTTARA KANNADA
2. MAHESH S/O DINKAR TAKKARKAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: RYOT
R/O.MAJALI, KOTHAR, TQ: KARWAR
DIST: UKUTTARA KANNADA
3. DINKAR S/O TANU TAKKARKAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: RYOT
R/O.MAJALI, KOTHAR, TQ: KARWAR
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT.
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AND FAST TRACK COURT-I UTTARA
KANNADA, KARWAR, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161/2006 DATED
11.07.2012 MODIFYING THE ORDER OF THE JMFC-II COURT,
KARWAR IN C.C.NO.761/2005 DATED 09.10.2006, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo
stating that the names of petitioners no.2 and 3 are wrongly
shown. Therefore, the petition in respect of petitioners no.2
and 3 may be dismissed as not pressed. Hence, in view of the
memo, the petition in respect of petitioners no.2 and 3 is
dismissed as not tenable as they are already acquitted by the
learned Sessions Judge.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the
judgment dated 11.7.2012, passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Karwar, in Crl.A.No.161/2006,
wherein the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in
part by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of accused for the offences punishable under
sections 504, 506 of IPC, imposed by the learned JMFC II-
Court, Karwar, in C.C.No.761/2005 by judgment dated
9.10.2006 and in respect of accused no.1 who is the
petitioner herein, modified the sentence and held that the he
is guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- which is assailed in this revision petition.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that one Vaishali
Asnotikar lodged a complaint before the police against three
accused alleging that they came to her house and abused her
on 15.2.2005 at 22.00 hours. When the complainant asked
the accused as to why they are abusing, the accused picked
up quarrel, assaulted and abused them in filthy language.
The accused no.1 assaulted with wooden flank on the right
shoulder of her brother Vinayak and accused nos.2 and 3
assaulted with hands.
4. The police after investigation filed the charge
sheet. The trial Court convicted the accused nos.1 to 3 for
the offences punishable under sections 504, 506 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offences
punishable under sections 504 of IPC and also imposed
similar punishment for the offence punishable under section
506 of IPC, but acquitted accused no.2 and 3 for the offences
punishable under section 326 of IPC and convicted accused
no.1 and imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months and fine of Rs.500/- and also default sentence. The
same was challenged by all the accused in
Crl.A.No.161/2006. The learned Sessions Judge by order
dated 11.7.2012 allowed the appeal in part and acquitted all
the accused for the offences punishable under sections 504
and 506 of IPC, but modified the conviction of the accused
no.1 to one under section 324 of IPC and imposed rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/-.
5. Heard Shri Girish Yadawad, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, the learned HCGP
for the respondent State and perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the incident alleged to have taken place for a silly reason
regarding the playing of the tape recorder with loud sound.
Both are neighbourers. No independent witnesses were
examined. The learned Sessions Judge not appreciated the
evidence in a proper perspective. In fact the witnesses who
are examined are close relatives. There is no ill will between
them. The appellate Court has acquitted the accused for the
other offences but ought not to have convicted the accused
no.1 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. The
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1
also beyond all reasonable doubt and prays to acquit the
accused no.1 the petitioner.
7. Against this, the learned HCGP supported the
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and argued that the
learned Sessions Judge has considered all the relevant
material and evidence. The assault is by wooden flank and
injury certificate also supports the same. There are no
reasons to disbelieve the evidence of injured victim.
Therefore, in view of the evidence adduced before the Court,
there are grounds to show that this petitioner is guilty of the
offence and rightly convicted by the Sessions Court.
Therefore, such a modified judgment needs no interference
and prayed to reject the revision.
8. I have perused the records of the case and also
the judgment of the trial Court as well as the first appellate
Court. PW.1 Vaishali in her deposition has stated the incident
and according to her, they were neighbourers and when she
asked as to why the accused are abusing her, the accused
no.1 came inside and assaulted her brother with a wooden
flank, they have also caused damage and threatened the
complainant. So she has lodged the complaint. She has also
stated that for playing tape recorder in loud sound, the
incident happened. In the cross-examination she has
admitted that the accused are not in talking terms with the
complainant and not going to each others house. They are
also not in good terms. Of course they have denied that there
is a civil dispute between them. It is also evident that earlier
also same complaints were lodged between accused and
complainant and the matter was settled before the police. It
is suggested in the cross-examination that there was a
quarrel between her father and these accused and in that
scuffle accused no.1 sustained injuries and her brother
sustained also injuries. She has denied it. It shows that some
injury was caused to CW.4 Vinayak who is examined as PW.2
and in his evidence also he has stated that accused no.1 has
assaulted with a wooden flank and there was a dislocation of
his shoulder bone. Of course lengthy suggestion was made
making suggestion about they having enmity with Dayanand,
and having grudge against these accused persons. It is also
suggested that when this witness was assaulted, his father
sustained injuries. He has denied it. It is also suggested that
in a scuffle and a group clash he has sustained the injuries, is
also denied. The pancha witness is the neighbourer and she
has also stated that for playing tape recorder the galata
started. She has stated that accused no.1 assaulted PW.2 on
his shoulder. But nothing is elicited in the cross-examination
of PW.4.
9. PW.5 Krishna, the PSI, is the investigating officer
in the case. PW.6 Dr.Chiranjeevi, Medical Officer, who has
examined this Vinayak Asnotikar has stated that there was a
dislocation of the shoulder of Vinayak as per x-ray report and
the injury no.2 is simple in injury. Though he has stated that
in a clash if a person falls on the ground, he may sustain
such injuries, but in the 313 Cr.P.C. statement the accused
simply denied the incriminating evidence and he has not
stated anything as how PW.2 sustained injury. Therefore,
both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court found that
the evidence of prosecution witnesses proves the assault with
wooden flank on the shoulder of Vinayak beyond all
reasonable doubt. Of course injuries are not grievous one,
but hurt is caused. The learned Sessions Judge after
re-appreciating the evidence and referring to the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of weapon used and
nature of injuries caused found that the evidence of
prosecution regarding assault by accused no.1 is proved and
he found that the offence under section 326 of IPC is not
applicable and modified the same to one under section 324 of
IPC and imposed sentence of three months rigorous
imprisonment along with sentence of fine with default
sentence.
10. The offence under section 324 of IPC is
punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or
with fine or with both. The alleged incident had taken place
on 15.2.2005. Accused undergone trial before the trial Court
and also before the appellate Court. For more than 17 years
he is facing the trial and the sword of conviction is hanging
upon him. Admittedly both are neighbourers. Because of
sound of tape recorder, for silly reason the incident took
place. May be in a heat of passion in order to take revenge,
and without controlling the emotion the accused has
assaulted, but the nature of injuries is not severe or the
weapon is also not a deadly weapon which would have
caused severe injury.
11. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, and
the circumstances under which the incident took place, the
relationship between the parties, in my considered view at
this length of time, imposition of punishment of imprisonment
appears to be too harsh. The ends of justice would be met by
imposing fine only. Of course in lieu of fine by modifying the
sentence of imprisonment, this will serve the ends of justice.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed in part.
ii) The conviction of accused no.1 for the
offence punishable under section 324 of
IPC, imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Karwar, by
judgment dated 11.7.2012, in
Crl.A.No.161/2006, is hereby confirmed.
However the sentence of imprisonment
and fine is modified to the one of fine of
Rs.3,000/- (three thousand rupees only).
The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.3,000/- only. The said fine shall be
deposited before the trial Court within a
period of one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
In default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for three
months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
