Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sujatha vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO.1209 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O SUNDARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. KUM. DEEPA
D/O SUNDARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
Digitally signed
by B A RESIDENT OF C.P.C COLONY
KRISHNA
KUMAR KADUR CITY, KADUR TALUK
Location: High CHIKKAMAGALUR
Court of
Karnataka DISTRICT - 577 548. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KADUR POLICE
KADUR TALUK
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR IN C.C.NO.29/2006 DATED 16.06.2010 AND
CONFIRM IN CRL.A.NO.144/2010 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND
S.J., CHIKKAMAGALUR, DATED 05.10.2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETS.
THIS CRL.R.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated
16.06.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur
(for short the 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.29/2006 and the
judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the I
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru (for short
the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.144/2010.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this
criminal revision petition as revealed from the records are that,
on 22.07.2005 at about 7.30 p.m, near old bus-stand, Kadur
Taluk, the Taluk Municipal Council officials had brought a JCB to
demolish the encroached petty shops. The accused persons
who were in occupation of one such petty shop were running
bonda businesss in the said shop. The property in which the
petty shops were situated was allegedly purchased by PW4 and
the accused persons were under impression that the TMC
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
officials had come to the spot for demolition of petty shops at
the instance of PW.4. When the officials of the TMC were
removing the encroachment, accused nos.1 and 2 were abusing
PWs.1 to 3 stating that they had supported PW4 for vacating
petty shops. At that time, accused no.3 came to the spot and
instigated accused nos.1 and 2 to throw acid on PWs.1 to 3.
Accused nos.1 and 2 allegedly went inside their house and
brought acid in a steel mug and threw the same on PWs.1 to 3
causing grievous hurt on the face and other parts of the body
of PWs.1 to 3. PW6, the police constable who tried to pacify the
dispute also sustained minor injuries when he tried to interfere.
Accused no.3 allegedly assaulted PW4 with a club and caused
simple injury to him. The Victims who had suffered injury as a
result of acid attack on them were immediately shifted to Kadur
hospital and thereafter shifted to Victoria hospital, Bengaluru.
The statement of PW.1 was recorded by the police while she
was admitted at Victoria hospital and on the basis of the said
statement, FIR was registered against the accused persons in
Crime No.200/2005 by the Kadur Police for the offences
punishable under Section 326, 504, 114 R/w 34 of IPC. The
police after investigation had filed charge sheet against the
accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
4. The accused persons claimed to be tried and
therefore, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case had
examined in all 19 witnesses as PWs.1 to 19 and also got
marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17 and 9 material
objections were produced and marked as MO.1 to 9. The
accused persons during the course of their Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., statement denied incriminating material available
against them on record. However, they did not choose to lead
any evidence nor was any documents marked in support of
their defence.
5. The Trial Court thereafter, heard the arguments on
both sides and vide the impugned judgment and order dated
16.02.2010 convicted the petitioners herein for the offences
punishable under Section 326, 504 R/w Section 34 of IPC and
acquitted them for the offence under Section 114 of IPC. For
the offence punishable under Section 326 R/w 34 of IPC , the
petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
each and in default to payment of fine, the petitioners were
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months each. The petitioners were also senetenced to undergo
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine
of Rs.500/- each and in default to payment of fine, undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence
punishable under Section 504 R/w 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved,
the petitioners had filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.114/2010 before
the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru which
was dismissed by the said Court on 05.10.2015. In this factual
background, the petitioners are before this Court in this
criminal revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioners for the
offence punishable under Section 326 and 504 of IPC. He
submits that the petitioners did not have any ill-will as against
PWs.1 to 3 and their grievance was only as against PW.4 and
therefore, they did not have any intention to harm the victims-
PWs.1 to 3. He submits that even the petitioners had sustained
injury and they were treated for the same which has been
admitted by PW.19. He further submits that the petitioners had
filed an application under Section 391 R/w 311 of Cr.P.C.,
during the pendency of the appeal and the said application was
allowed and PW.1, 4 and 5 were recalled by the appellate Court
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
and examined before the said Court and during the course of
deposition, they have stated that they had not seen the
petitioners throwing the acid on victims. He also submits that
the suggestion made by the State to the said witnesses would
clearly go to show that the parties have settled the dispute
between themselves. He submits that the petitioners are ladies
who have undergone imprisonment for a period of nearly one
year. Therefore, prays that leniency may be shown while
sentencing the petitioners.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and submits that there is concurrent finding recorded
by the Courts below conviction of the petitioner and therefore
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot be
interfered with such a finding recorded by the Courts below. He
submits that even the sentence imposed upon the petitioners
having regard to the nature of crime committed by them is just
and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly,
he prays to dismiss the revision petition.
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
8. I have carefully considered the arguments
addressed on both the sides and also perused the material
available on record
9. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused persons, in all examined 19 witnesses before the Trial
Court. PWs.1 to 3 and PW6 are victims who had suffered
injuries in the incident. The evidence of these witnesses is
consistent and they have clearly stated that the petitioners had
thrown acid on them and as a result they suffered grievous
injuries on their body. The defence has not been able to adduce
anything from these witnesses during the course of cross-
examination before the Trial Court to disbelieve their evidence.
The Doctor - PW6 who had treated this witness had issued
wound certificate as per Ex.P8 to 12 and had stated that the
said victims have suffered injury on their body as a result of
acid throw on them. PW.17 is the Forensic Expert and he has
given a report that the articles responded positive for the
presence of concentrated sulfuric acid. PWs.2 to 8 have clearly
stated in their evidence that accused nos.1 and 2 i.e., the
petitioners herein had thrown acid at the instigation of accused
no.3 causing injury to the body of PWs.1 to 3 and 6. The Trial
Court having appreciated the evidence on record has rightly
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 326 and 504 R/w 34 of IPC and there is no scope for
interference against the said finding.
10. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears that
the parties have settled the dispute between themselves.
Therefore, application under Section 391 R/w 311 of Cr.P.C.,
was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Court
with a prayer to recall PW.1, 3 to 5. The said application was
allowed and the aforesaid witnesses were subjected to further
cross-examination before the Appellate Court and during the
course of thier cross-examination, the said witnesses have
stated before the Appellate Court that they do not know who
had thrown acid on them and they were not able to identify the
person, who had thrown acid on them as it was dark and there
was no proper light to identify the accused persons. These
witnesses were also subjected to cross-examination by public
prosecutor and it was suggested to them that the dispute
between the petitioners and the victims was compromised at
the instance of well-wishers and elders of the village. In fact
PWs.1 and 5 have admitted that the dispute between the
parties was settled. However, the Trial Court had refused to
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
take into consideration the settlement arrived between the
parties on the ground that the offence punishable under Section
326 of IPC is non-compoundable and even though there was a
settlement, the petitioners cannot be acquitted and accordingly,
had refused to look into the further cross-examination of
aforesaid witnesses that was recorded before the Appellate
Court.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HASI
MOHAN BARMAN AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF ASSAM AND
ANOTHER - (2008) 1 SCC 184 at paragraph nos.9, 10 and
11 has held as follows:
"9. There are some decisions of this Court wherein
the factor of compromise between the accused and the
complainant (or injured or person aggrieved) has been
taken into consideration for reducing the sentence.
10. The first decision on this point was rendered by
this Court in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P. [(1973) 2 SCC
456 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 870] wherein the trial court had
convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC which is a
non-compoundable offence and had sentenced the
accused to four years' RI. The High Court took into
consideration the compromise between the appellant-
accused and the injured and reduced the sentence to two
years' RI. This Court, after observing that the fact of
compromise can be taken into account for determining the
quantum of sentence, reduced the sentence to the period
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
already undergone which was little more than four months
and further imposed a fine of Rs 1500 on each of the
appellants. Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa
[(1999) 5 SCC 238 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 998] is a decision of a
Bench of three learned Judges. It was observed that in
view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 320
CrPC an offence can be compounded only in accordance
with the provisions of the said section. The Court followed
the view taken in Ram Pujan [(1973) 2 SCC 456 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 870] and having regard to the fact that the
parties had compromised and a period of ten years had
elapsed from the date of the incident reduced the sentence
of five years' RI imposed under Sections 307 and 326 IPC
to the period of sentence already undergone which was
three months and also imposed fine of Rs 5000.
11. There are several other decisions of this
Court wherein factor of compromise has been taken into
consideration and the sentence has been reduced mostly
to the period already undergone and they are Bankat
v.State of Maharastra, Badrilal v. State of M.P. and Jetha
Ram v. State of Rajasthan."
12. The petitioners herein have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 326 and 504 R/w 34 of IPC.
The petitioners are ladies. Petitioner Nos.2 is the daughter of
petitioner No.1. During the course of trial, the petitioners were
in custody for the period from 23.07.2005 to 22.08.2005. In
the background of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above noted cases, I am of the considered view
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
that lenient view is required to be taken in the present case
while sentencing the petitioners and if, the sentence is reduced
to the period already undergone by the petitioners the same
would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, I pass the
following :-
::ORDER::
Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
The judgment and order of conviction of the
petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 326 and 504 R/w Section 34 of IPC
passed by the courts below is upheld.
The sentence imposed by the Trial Court
which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court
in respect of aforesaid offences is modified.
The sentence imposed upon the petitioners
in respect of offence punishable under Section
326 of IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by them and they are directed to pay
fine of Rs.30,000/- each and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 1209 of 2015
months. In respect of offence punishable under
Section 504 of IPC, the petitioners are sentenced
to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to
pay fine, undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of two months.
Out of fine amount, an amount of
Rs.25,000/- each shall be paid to the victims
namely PWs.1 to 3 and the balance amount of
Rs.5,000/- shall be forfeited towards State
expenses.
SD/-
JUDGE
NMS
