Mahesha vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5448 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.841/2013

BETWEEN:

MAHESHA
S/O CHAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O. KARASAVADI VILLAGE
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT.                      ...PETITIONER

             (BY SRI K.L.SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION
BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.                         ... 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 JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.08.2013 PASSED
BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.91/11 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:8/15.11.2011, PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, IN C.C.NO.105/2006 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 341, 326 506,
357 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

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



                             ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the

judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by the I Additional

Sessions Judge, Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.91/2011 and

consequently, set aside the order dated 08.11.2011, passed by

the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya, in

C.C.No.105/2006 for the offences punishable sections 504, 341,

326, 506 and 357 read with section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that the petitioner, in connection with the dispute between the

parties on 06.05.2008 at about 4.00 p.m., when he was feeding

water in the land of one Ramaiah, where he had grown

sugarcane crop, the neighboring land owners came there and

stopped water flowing to that land and in that connection, picked

up quarrel and abused in filthy language and accused No.1

caught hold of the victim and his son and accused No.2

assaulted with wooden handle portion of the spade on the head.

As a result, the victim had sustained grievous injuries and also

suffered fracture. Immediately, he was taken to hospital and

took treatment in different hospital, including the NIMHANS

Hospital.

4. Based on the complaint, case has been registered

and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-

sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 326,

506 and 357 read with section 34 of IPC.

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

examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7, including the injured and

eye witnesses P.Ws.3 and 6 and P.W.3 supported the case of the

prosecution and P.W.6 turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution. Apart from that, the prosecution also examined the

doctors, who have treated the injured i.e., P.Ws.8 to 10.

6. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the petitioner

and also imposed maximum substantive sentence for a period of

two years for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and also

imposed sentence and fine in respect of other offences.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction

and sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.91/2011. The

Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal.

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

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that, though P.W.1 supports the case of the

prosecution and according to the prosecution, P.W.6, who is an

eye witness did not support the case of the prosecution and

according to the prosecution, one Anvesh is also an eye witness

but, he has not been examined and even, he has not been cited

as a witness in the charge-sheet.

9. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that accused No.2

assaulted him with handle of the spade, whereas the statement

is made before the police that, at the first instance, accused

No.2 assaulted him with handle portion of the spade and there is

a material discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to

using of weapon. The counsel also would submit that there is no

any corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. Apart from

that, medical evidence also not supports the case of the

prosecution and both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

committed an error in convicting the petitioner and imposing

sentence. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State would submit that, P.W.1 is the injured

witness and P.W.3 is an eye witness, who supported the case of

the prosecution and there is no contradiction in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3, except minor discrepancies in the evidence of

prosecution and the same will not go to the very root of the case

of the prosecution. Apart from that, P.Ws.8 to 10 are the

Doctors, who have treated the injured and categorically depose

with regard to the nature of injuries i.e., fracture of frontal bone

and also giving treatment in different hospitals. M.O.1-spade

which was used for inflicting injury on the head is also seized

and marked and blood stained clothes of the P.W.1 i.e., M.Os.2

and 3 were also seized and identified before the Court.

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:

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 341, 326, 506 and 357 read with section 34 of IPC?

(2) Whether the Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction, considering the grounds urged in the revision petition?

(3) What order?

Point Nos.(1) & (2)

12. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material on record, the very case of the

prosecution is that, when P.W.1 was feeding water to his

sugarcane land, neighboroing land owners came and picked up

quarrel and accused No.1 held him and accused No.2 inflicted

injury with wooden handle of the spade. As a result, he had

sustained injuries. In order to prove the case, the prosecution

examined P.W.1 and the P.W.1 gave the complaint in terms of

Ex.P1 and his evidence is in terms of Ex.P1. In the cross-

examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited, except making

suggestion that, earlier also, there was an incident between the

P.W.1 and also accused persons and the same was denied. It is

also suggested that there was a prior enmity between them and

the same is also denied. In the cross-examination of P.W.1,

nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, except the

suggestion of prior enmity.

13. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of

P.W.3, who says that he witnessed the incident standing at the

distance and also categorically states that accused Nos.1 and 2

inflicted injury to P.W.1 with the handle of spade and

immediately after inflicting the injury, they ran away from the

spot and he himself took the injured to the hospital in his

scooter. In the cross-examination also, very chief evidence is

elicited and he only says that he was very much present when

P.W.1 was making statement before the doctor, but the doctor

did not take his signature and except this answer, nothing is

elicited with regard to the incident is concerned.

14. No doubt, P.W.6, who is also an eye witness not

supports the case of the prosecution, the prosecution also relied

upon the evidence of P.Ws.8 to 10-Doctors. On perusal of the

documentary evidence i.e., wound certificate which is marked as

Ex.P5, it discloses that the injured had suffered depressed

fracture of left temporal bone and injury is grievous in nature

and there is a fracture of depressed left temporal bone.

15. When such being the material on record, apart from

that, inpatient records of District Hospital, Mandya is also

marked as Ex.P7 and it is also the evidence of P.W.1 that he was

also taken to NIMHANS Hospital and NIMHANS Hospital records

is marked as Ex.P11.

16. Having considered the medical evidence, evidence of

injured and also the evidence of eye witness i.e., P.W.3, I do not

find any error committed by the Trial Court and also the

Appellate Court in considering the material on record. The Trial

Court also, while passing an order, discussed in detail,

particularly in para Nos.18, 19 and 20. The Trial Court, apart

from the evidence of P.W.1-injured witness which has been

discussed in para No.11 as well as the evidence of P.W.3, who is

an eye witness evidence and also considering the medical

evidence which has been discussed in para Nos.18 to 20, rightly

comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the case

against the petitioner herein.

17. The Appellate Court also, considering the evidence

on record, in para No.11 discussed the evidence of P.W.1, the

evidence of P.W.3 in para No.13 and in para No.19, discussed

the evidence of P.Ws.8 to 10 and re-assessing the evidence on

record, in para No.24, comes to the conclusion that the Trial

Court has also taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth

of P.Ws.1 and 2 and comes to the conclusion that nothing is on

record to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, the injured and

dismissed the appeal.

18. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the grounds urged in the petition, the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts

committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence on

record cannot be accepted. The minor discrepancies which have

been pointed out by the petitioner will not go to the very root of

the case of the prosecution. The very contention that P.W.1 in

his evidence stated that accused No.2 assaulted on the left side

of the head and while making the statement before the police at

the first instance stated that accused No.2 assaulted him with

handle portion of spade is a minor discrepancy and the said

discrepancy cannot be a ground to exercise the revisional

jurisdiction and the Court has to look into the material on record

and the finding of the Appellate Court and the Trial Court, based

on both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the

question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise.

This Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction, only if the

cogent material on record is not considered and any perverse

order is passed and in the absence of the same, I do not find any

ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction, in coming to the

conclusion that both the Courts have committed an error.

Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, I

answer point Nos.(1) and (2) as 'negative'.

19. With regard to the sentence is concerned, the

weapon used is handle of the spade and that too, injury is

inflicted on the vital part of the body i.e., head. As a result,

there is a fracture of depressed temporal bone and immediately,

the injured was taken to hospital and given treatment at District

Hospital, Mandya and thereafter, was shifted to NIMHANS

Hospital. Taking note of the gravity of the offence and the

nature of injuries, I do not find any ground even to interfere with

the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and no grounds are

made out to even reduce the sentence.

Point No.(3)

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

following:

ORDER

The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST