T.L.Puttaswamy vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 5230 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.852/2013

BETWEEN:

1.     T.L.PUTTASWAMY
       S/O LINGEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2.     SANDEEP
       S/O T.L.PUTTASWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

       PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE
       RESIDING AT DR.RAJA RAO ROAD
       J.C.EXTENSION
       KANAKAPURA TOWN-562117
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.                ...PETITIONERS

              (BY SRI A.S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY
KANAKAPURA TOWN POLICE
KANAKAPURA TOWN-562 117
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.                ...RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE    THE    ORDER    PASSED     IN   CRL.A.NO.3/11
DATED:22.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
                                      2



FAST TRACK COURT, RAMANAGARA, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.12.2010 PASSED BY
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA IN
C.C.NO.985/03 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF THE CHARGE
FRAMED AGAINST THEM.

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

                                  ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the order

passed in Crl.A.No.3/11 dated 22.09.2012 on the file of the

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagara and set aside

the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.12.2010

passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,

Kanakapura in C.C.No.985/03 and acquit the petitioners of the

charges framed against them.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court is that on 18.08.2003 at about 8.30 p.m.,

in furtherance of common intention, the accused persons picked

up quarrel with C.Ws.1 to 3 and assaulted the injured C.W.1-

Lingegowda by means of club and sickle causing injuries to his

left hand, left shoulder. When C.W.2-Kempegowda came to

pacify, the accused No.1 assaulted him by means by club

causing injuries on his left hand, right leg and so also assaulted

C.W.3-Anand by means of club causing injuries on his chest,

right shoulder and also caused life threat. Hence, case is

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,

326 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the case,

examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1

to P6(a) and M.Os.1 and 2 were also marked i.e., sickle as well

as a piece of stone. The petitioners have not led any evidence

before the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court, considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused

for all the offences and imposed fine in respect of all the offences

except the offence under Section 326 in respect of accused No.2.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and

sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.3/2011. The Appellate

Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, dismissed the appeal.

Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that, there were a case and counter case and

against the counter part also, a case is registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323,

324 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and in that case, the

Trial Court, though comes to the conclusion that an incident has

taken place, imposed only fine. The same has been challenged

before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also

confirmed the same. But, the Appellate Court, while considering

the present case, dismissed the appeal.

7. The counsel would submit that the relationship

between the parties is that they are brothers, father and

cousins. The counsel would also submit that, in order to invoke

Section 326 of IPC, there were no fractures and the question of

invoking Section 326 of IPC does not arise. The counsel also

brought to the notice of this Court the injuries sustained by one

of the injured and on perusal of Ex.P3-Wound Certificate, it is

seen that the injuries sustained are simple in nature and only

injury Nos.1 to 4 are grievous in nature i.e., in-sized wound over

left index finger and joint bones and tendons exposed. Though it

is termed as grievous in nature, the same does not attract the

offence under Section 326 of IPC. The counsel also brought to

the notice of this Court that, P.W.1 in his evidence has not

stated that the first petitioner, who is accused No.1 inflicted

injury with sickle, but, he only says that, when his grand-son

and his mother were abusing, at that time, the first petitioner

inflicted injury to his left hand. As a result, he has sustained

injury but, only sickle is marked as Ex.P1, but he has not spoken

anything about causing injury with sickle and inspite of the

same, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the

petitioner No.1 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.

8. The counsel would also submit that the petitioners

were also convicted for the other offences and imposed sentence

and when the very injured has not spoken anything about the

injuries caused with sickle, invoking Section 326 of IPC is

erroneous and the doctor also, who has been examined as

P.W.6, though has issued the wound certificate in terms of

Ex.P3, except marking the documents Exs.P3 and P4, not spoken

anything about the fractures on account of the injuries inflicted.

Hence, the Trial Court, ought not to have invoked the offence

under Section 326 of IPC and the Appellate Court also failed to

consider the evidence on record and erroneously confirmed the

judgment of the Trial Court even for the offence under Section

326 of IPC.

9. Though the Appellate Court discussed the evidence

of Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.6 in para No.11, failed

to take note of the nature of injuries and the same does not

attract the offence under Section 326 of IPC. The counsel would

further submit that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that

the offence under Section 326 of IPC does not attract, the Court

can take a lenient view and pass appropriate orders.

10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that, P.W.1 had sustained

injuries and the doctor, who has been examined as P.W.6 has

given the wound certificate in terms of Ex.P3 which discloses the

nature of injuries and the same are grievous in nature. She

would further submit that, P.Ws.4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to

the incident and Ex.P3-wound certificate disclose that there was

a grievous injury i.e., in-sized wound over left index finger and

joint bones and tendons exposed. Hence, the Trial Court comes

to the conclusion that the offence attracts Section 326 of IPC

and the Appellate Court also confirmed the same.

11. 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 the Trial Court committed an error in convicting petitioner No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC?

(ii) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC?

(iii) Whether the Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court?

(iv) What order?

Point Nos.(i) to (iii)

12. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material on record, no doubt, P.W.1 is the injured

witness, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, except stating that

first petitioner assaulted him and he has sustained injury to his

finger, nothing is stated that he has assaulted with sickle, no

doubt, M.O.1-sickle is marked.

13. The other witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 are eye witnesses

regarding the incident is concerned. It is not in dispute that

case and counter case in C.C.Nos.985/2003 and 986/2003 are

registered and in both the cases, the Trial Court passed an order

of conviction and in the case in C.C.No.985/2003, the Trial Court

imposed fine and not imposed any substantive sentence and the

same has been challenged in the appeal and admittedly, the

appeal is also dismissed and the order of conviction and

sentence is confirmed in connected case. But, only in the case

on hand, a ground is urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the nature of injuries does not attract the

offence under Section 326 of IPC.

14. Having considered the wound certificate at Ex-P3 it is

seen that three simple injuries are sustained, no doubt there is a

grievous injury i.e., in-sized wound over left index finger and

joint bones and tendons exposed and the same does not attract

the offence under Section 326 of IPC, since there is no fracture

and also no permanent disfiguration is caused. Apart from that,

there is no material before the Trial Court as to whether the

injured took treatment in the hospital as inpatient.

15. It is also important to note that the prosecution

relied upon the evidence of P.W.6-Doctor and the P.W.6 also in

the cross-examination admitted that, if any person falls on the

sharp edged object, there is a chance of sustaining the injuries

which are mentioned in Ex.P3 and though his evidence is

discussed in criminal appeal, the Appellate Court failed to take

note of the fact whether it attracts the offence under Section 326

of IPC. Hence, both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner No.1 for

the offence under Section 326 of IPC and already convicted for

the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentence is also

already imposed in respect of the offence under Section 324 and

other offences. When such being the material on record, the

sentence of two years imposed for the offence under Section 326

IPC against the petitioner No.1 requires to be interfered with by

exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

16. It is also important to note that the Trial Court

convicted the petitioner No.1 for the offence punishable under

Section 326 of IPC but, not convicted the other accused for the

offence under Section 326 of IPC but, invoked Section 34 against

the accused No.1 i.e., the first petitioner herein. If the finding of

the Trial Court is against only one accused, the question of

invoking Section 34 of IPC for the offence under Section 326 of

IPC does not arise and the same is an error by the Trial Court

and the Appellate Court also, abruptly, without looking into the

factual aspects of the case, confirmed the judgment of the Trial

Court. In view of coming to the conclusion that the offence does

not attract Section 326 of IPC, I answer point No.(i) as

'affirmative' and point No.(iii) as 'partly affirmative'.

17. Regarding the other defence is concerned, the

incident has taken place and case and counter cases were

registered and in counter case also, conviction was made for the

offences under Sections 324 and 323 and other offences and the

same is confirmed. In this case also, incident has taken place

and the injured has taken treatment is not in dispute. The

witnesses have also deposed regarding the incident and counter

case is also registered. Apart from that, medical evidence also

corroborates the case of the prosecution. Therefore, I do not

find any reason to interfere with the finding of sentence with

regard to Sections 324 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of

IPC. Hence, I answer point No.(ii) as 'negative'.

Point No.(iv)

18. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 326 of IPC in respect of petitioner No.1 is hereby set aside.

(iii) The conviction and sentence in respect of other offences against the petitioners- accused stands unaltered.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST