Karnataka High Court
Janardhana Gowda @ Puttaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664/2012
BETWEEN:
1. JANARDHANA GOWDA
@ PUTTASWAMY
S/O. NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. JAYARAMA
S/O. GIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2
ARE R/AT SALUMARA,
GONIBEEDU HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.H.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GONIBEEDU POLICE
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE IN
C.C.NO.1396/1999 DATED 17.06.2011 AND CONFIRMED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.105/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHICKMAGALUR
DATED 16.06.2012.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere in C.C.No.1396/1999 dated
17.06.2011 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.105/2011 on the file of
the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chickmagalur dated
16.06.2012 and acquit the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that these petitioners on 19.09.1999 at about 12.00 p.m., when
P.W.2 asked them about removing of fence which was erected
behind his house, these petitioners picked up quarrel with P.W.2-
Honnegowda and petitioner No.2 caught hold of him and
petitioner No.1 hit on the head of the P.W.2 with a spade.
Hence, P.W.2 sustained injury on the head and fell down. The
petitioner No.2 also assaulted P.W.2 with a sickle on his left
hand. As a result, his left hand middle finger was chopped off.
At that time, when P.W.1-Mohan came to rescue P.W.2,
petitioner No.2 assaulted P.W.1 with hand and petitioner No.1 hit
on the head of P.W.1 with spade and caused bleeding injury.
Hence, the police have invoked the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove the case,
examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and also marked the material objects
as M.Os.1 to 4.
5. Having considered the material on record, the Trial
Court convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months and imposed fine of Rs.500/-
each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioners were also convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine,
to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
sentence, the petitioners filed the appeal before the Appellate
Court in Crl.A.No.105/2011. The Appellate Court also, on re-
appreciation of the material available before the Court, comes to
the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and the prosecution has established the case
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the present revision petition is
filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument
would submit that he will not challenge the findings with regard
to conviction but, the sentence imposed against the petitioners is
too harsh and it requires interference of this Court. The counsel
would also submit that the Court has to take note of the
circumstances under which the incident has taken place and it is
only a dispute with regard to fencing and due to sudden
provocation, the incident has taken place and these petitioners
have assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2 with spade and sickle.
8. The counsel, in support of his argument, relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HABBALAPPA
DUNDAPPA KATTI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
with VENKAPPA DUNDAPPA KATTI V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2002 SC 485, wherein also there
was an unlawful assembly and Section 326 read with Section 34
of IPC was invoked. In the said case, the appellant was
acquitted by the Trial Court and in the appeal, the High Court set
aside the acquittal. Thereafter, though they surrendered
themselves, they were granted bail by the Apex Court. The
Apex Court, taken note of the fact that there is no material to
show that after their release on bail, accused have acted in any
manner prejudicial to law and order. In circumstances
substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused was
reduced to period of imprisonment already undergone but,
sentence of fine was imposed on each of the accused and
ordered to pay the amount in favour of the injured persons. The
counsel referring this judgment would submit that the petitioners
were in custody for a period of 12 days and this Court can
enhance the fine amount and order to pay the same in favour of
the injured persons.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the State would submit that both the injured persons have
suffered fractures. The injured one Mohan suffered fracture of
right fronto perital region. The wound certificate also disclose
evidence of break in continuity with depressed fracture
fragments. The other injured one Honnegowda has suffered two
grievous injuries i.e., left hand middle finger first index and pulp
with nail completely chopped off and lacerated wound over the
head, parital region about 1½ x 1½ x ¼ cms. and there was a
fracture of first phalanx. Hence, the question of reducing the
sentence does not arise and the Court has to take note of the
nature of injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2. She would further
submit that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is very less
and the same not commensurate with the gravity of the offence
and the question of reducing the sentence does not arise.
10. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether this Court can set off the sentence
considering that the petitioners were in
custody for a period of 12 days by enhancing
the fine amount, keeping in view the
principles laid down in the judgment of the
Apex Court stated (supra)?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i)
11. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the records disclose
that the incident has taken place for removal of fence which was
erected behind the house of P.W.2, who asked these petitioners
about the same. In that connection, petitioner No.1 hit on the
head of P.W.2 with spade and petitioner No.2 assaulted the
P.W.2 with a sickle on his head and also assaulted P.W.1 and
caused bleeding injuries, who came to rescue P.W.2. As a
result, both of them have suffered fractures. Apart from that,
the records disclose that left hand middle finger of P.W.2 was
also chopped off. On perusal of the wound certificate, it is seen
that no details are available as to for how many days the injured
persons were in the hospital. But, both the injured went to the
hospital on the date of the incident at 1.20 p.m. and 1.30 p.m.
12. The Apex Court also in the judgment, taking into
note of occurrence took place as early as 1986, almost after 16
years, taken note of long gap of incident and matter has come
up before the Court and comes to a conclusion that it would
serve the ends of justice if the appellants are not now sent back
to jail, as indeed nothing has been brought to our notice to show
that after their release on bail they have acted in any manner
prejudicial to law and order. We, therefore, reduce the
substantive sentences of imprisonment of the appellants to the
period already undergone.
13. But, on perusal of the judgment, it is seen that after
conviction by the High Court, the appellants have approached
the Apex Court and the Apex Court granted bail and by that
time, the appellants were already in jail. But, in the case on
hand, the petitioners were in the jail only for a period of 12
days, immediately after their arrest and both the Courts have
given a concurrent finding regarding incident is concerned and
comes to the conclusion that prosecution has established the
case against the petitioners. In the judgment referred (supra),
there was an acquittal by the Trial Court and the High Court
reversed the same.
14. Having considered the facts of this case, the incident
has taken place regarding removal of fence and both the
petitioners as well as the injured persons are farmers and
incident has taken place due to sudden provocation and these
petitioners assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2 with agricultural weapons
i.e., spade and sickle. As a result, P.Ws.1 and 2 have suffered
fractures. Having taken note of the gravity of the offence and
the nature of injuries and also the fact that the incident has
taken place in the year 1999 and almost 23 years have elapsed,
sending these petitioners to suffer substantive sentence could be
considered in a lenient way by imposing fine and paying the
same as compensation to the injured persons. The petitioners
were in custody for a period of 12 days. Having considered the
fact that 23 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, it
is appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence of
imprisonment of the petitioners for the period of imprisonment
already undergone by them during the course of trial by
enhancing the fine amount, as observed in the judgment
referred (supra).
15. Having considered the nature of injuries suffered by
P.Ws.1 and 2 i.e., evidence of break in continuity with depressed
fracture fragments and lacerated wound over the head, parital
region about 1½ x 1½ x ¼ cms. and fracture of first phalanx and
left hand middle finger of P.W.2 was also chopped off, it is
appropriate to enhance the fine amount to Rs.75,000/- each
considering the nature of injuries. Hence, I answer point No.(i)
as 'affirmative'.
Point No.(ii)
16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 326 read with
Section 34 of IPC is confirmed. However, the
substantive sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by the petitioners.
(iii) The petitioners are directed to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC.
(iv) The petitioners are also directed to pay a fine
of Rs.70,000/- each for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC within
six weeks from today.
(v) Out of the fine amount deposited by the
petitioners, an amount of Rs.70,000/- each is
ordered to be paid to P.Ws.1 and 2 on proper
identification. The remaining fine amount of
Rs.10,000/- shall vest with the State.
(vi) In default of payment of fine within six weeks
from today, the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court shall stand confirmed and the
petitioners shall be subjected to serve
substantive sentence of imprisonment as
ordered by the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
