Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 694 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI,
S/O GAVISIDDEGOWDA,
AGE 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.525, 8TH WEST CROSS ROAD,
ASHOKA ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI C.V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANKET M YENAGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SUDHA S
Location:
High Court STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka
REP. BY NAZARBAD POLICE STATION,
MYSORE-570 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED:14.08.2014 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.S.J., MYSORE IN
CRL.A.NO.317/13 AND ORDER DATED:30.09.2013 PASSED BY
THE JMFC-III COURT, MYSORE IN C.C.NO.652/12 WAS
CONFIRMED AND ALLOW THE INSTANT CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 r/w
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the sole accused challenging
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by
the JMFC (III) Court, Mysore in C.C.No.652/2012 dated
30.09.2013 and the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the
Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore in Criminal
Appeal No.317/2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this criminal
revision petition as revealed from records are:
On 17.05.2011, when PWs.1 to 3 and 6 who were
employed by the petitioner herein for the purpose of fixing the
glass in the under construction house belonging to PW.4, were
working in the said house, the temporary ladder on which
PWs.1 and 2 were standing in the first floor of the under
construction house belonging to PW.4, broke down and as a
result, PWs.1 and 2 fell on the floor from a height of above 15
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
feet causing fracture of back bone of PW.1 and PW.2 suffered
simple injuries all over his body.
4. In respect of this incident, a complaint was lodged
by PW.1 before the jurisdictional police. Based on the same,
FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences
punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. The police after
completion of investigation had filed charge sheet against the
petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After receipt of summons
from the trial Court, petitioner had appeared before the Court
and claimed to be tried for the alleged offences.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case had
examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and also got marked
seven documents as Exs.P1 to 7. The petitioner/accused had
denied the incriminating circumstances available against him on
record during course of his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.
However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence, but
he got marked portion of the complaint of PW.1 as Ex.D1.
6. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both
sides by its judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 convicted
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
the petitioner for the alleged offences and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the
offence punishable under Section 337 of Cr.P.C. and for the
offence punishable under Section 338 of Cr.P.C. he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30
days. The trial Court also directed the petitioner to pay
compensation of Rs.40,000/- to PW.1 and Rs.10,000/- to PW.2
under Section 375(3) of Cr.P.C..
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of
conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed Criminal
Appeal No.317/2013, which was dismissed by the Appellate
Court by its judgment and order dated 14.08.2014. It is in this
factual background petitioner is before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner. He
submits that in the absence of any material to show that the
petitioner was the employer of PWs.1 and 2, Courts below
could not have convicted him for the alleged offences. He
refers to evidence of PW.6 who was one of the workers along
with PWs.1 and 2 and submits that his evidence clearly shows
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
that petitioner was not the employer of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 6. He
also submits that petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents and therefore Courts below ought to have taken
lenient view while imposing sentence on him for the alleged
offences and accordingly he prays to allow the criminal revision
petition.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent-State argued in support of the impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts
below and submits that evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clearly
establishes that the injured persons were employed by the
petitioner for fixing the glass in the under construction house of
PW.4. She further submits that the incident in question has
been proved by the prosecution and also injuries suffered by
PWs.1 and 2 in the said incident. Under the circumstances,
there is no scope for interference against the concurrent finding
recorded by two Courts and accordingly she prays to dismiss
the revision petition.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments of both
sides and also perused the material on record.
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
11. Prosecution in order to prove its case before the
trial Court in all had examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10.
PWs.1 to 3 and PW.6 are the persons who were employed by
the petitioner for fixing the glass in the under construction
house of PW.4. PW.5 is the doctor who had treated the injured
PWs.1 and 2 and had issued wound certificate. PW.7 is the spot
mahazar witness and he has deposed about drawing up of
mahazar by police at the place of the incident and also
identified his signature. PW.8 is the ASI of Nazarbad Police
Station and after receipt of MLC memo from the hospital, he
had gone to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured
PW.1, based on which, a criminal case was registered against
the petitioner. He had also thereafter gone to the spot and
drawn spot mahazar Ex.P5 and recorded the statement of
witnesses.
PW.9 is the PSI of Nazarbad Police Station who completed
the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW.10 is the son
of PW.4. PWs.1, 2 and 3 have deposed before the trial Court
stating that the petitioner was their employee and they were
undertaking the work of fixing the glass in the under
construction house of PW.4 at the instruction of PW.1. From
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
their evidence it is very clear that at the time of the incident,
PWs.1 and 2 were working in the first floor while PWs.3 and 6
were working in the ground floor. PWs.1 and 2 were standing
on the temporary ladder that was arranged for the purpose of
fixing the glass in the under construction house of PW.4.
PWs.3 and 6 were supplying the glass from the ground floor to
PWs.1 and 2 who were working in the first floor. PWs.1, 2, 3
and 6 have all spoken about manner in which the incident has
taken place and also the injuries suffered by PWs.1 and 2 in the
said incident. The injuries suffered by PWs.1 and 2 have been
proved by prosecution by examining the doctor-PW.5. The
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 corroborates with each other in all
aspects and the evidence of PW.6 corroborates with evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 regarding the manner in which the incident had
taken place.
12. During course of examination, defence has failed to
elicit anything from PWs.1 to 3 so as to disbelieve their version.
Evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 6 clearly demonstrate that since
temporary ladder which was made up of wooden poles on which
PWs.1 and 2 were standing and attending the glass work had
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
broken, the incident had taken place resulting in causing
grievous injuries to PW.1 and simple injuries to PW.2. Evidence
of PWs.1 to 3 also establishes that petitioner who was their
employee had not taken sufficient care and he had not provided
security belts to his employees who were asked to work from a
height standing on a temporary ladder.
13. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, and have recorded concurrent findings against the
petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 337 and 338
of Cr.P.C. Petitioner has not demonstrated before this Court
that the said findings either suffer from perversity or illegality.
Therefore, this Court in exercise of its revisional powers cannot
interfere with the same. However, insofar as, the sentence
imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Cr.P.C.
which has been upheld by the Appellate Court is concerned,
taking into consideration that the petitioner who is a married
man does not have any criminal antecedents, and also
considering that the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
Cr.P.C. are punishable either with imprisonment or fine or with
both, if the petitioner is directed to pay considerable amount of
compensation to the victims PWs.1 and 2 under Section 357(3)
of Cr.P.C. and if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to
minimum, that would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the
following:
ORDER
1. The Criminal Revision Petition is partly
allowed;
2. The judgment and order of conviction passed
by the Courts below convicting petitioner for
the offences punishable under Sections 337
and 338 of Cr.P.C. is up held;
3. The sentence imposed by the trial Court for
offences punishable under Sections 337 and
338 of Cr.P.C directing imprisonment for a
period of 15 days and 30 days respectively is
modified and the same is reduced to till the
rising of the Court.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 694 of 2014
4. Further, acting under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C., in modification of the trial Court
order the petitioner is directed to pay a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and out of
the said amount, a sum of Rs.90,000/- shall
be paid to PW.1 and the balance of
Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW.2.
5. The compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
which would be inclusive of amount already
deposited by the petitioner, if any before trial
Court, shall be deposited by him within a
period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PGG
