Karnataka High Court
The State vs Siddalingappa on 10 July, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 196 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE
REPRESENTED BY
NANJANGUD RURAL POLICE STATION
MYSURU - 571 301.
REP BY S.P.P
HIGH COURT BENGALURU
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
Digitally
AND:
signed by N
UMA
Location: 1. SIDDALINGAPPA
HIGH
COURT OF SON OF THOTADAPPA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2. SHIVANANJAPPA
SON OF LATE VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. RAJASHEKAR
SON OF THOTADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
4. THOTADAPPA
SON OF JAVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
5. SMT. HEMA
WIFE OF SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
6. SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA
WIFE OF SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
DEBUR VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. LATHASHREE D L, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. D C DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.09.2015
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.23/2014 PASSED BY THE 5TH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AND
SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
28.08.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.753/2008 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 28.08.2013 in C.C.No.753/2008 on the
file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at
Nanjangud and its confirmation judgment and order dated
28.09.2015 in Crl.A.No.23/2014 on the file of the Court of the
V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, seeking to set
aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
2. The petitioners are the accused before the Trial
Court and respondents before the Appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 8.8.2008,
at about 10.30 p.m., in front of the house of CW.1
Parashivamurthy at Debur Village, the respondents with a
common intention to commit the offence, holding deadly
weapons like choppers and clubs and committed rioting against
Javanappa and Parashivamurthy. The overt act of these
respondents / accused is explained in the complaint. It is
further stated that, due to the assault in the said quarrel,
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
Parashivamurthy sustained injuries and was taken to hospital.
The Doctor treated him and submitted his report as per Exs.P6
and P7. According to PW.7 who treated PW.1, the injuries are
grievous in nature. A case came to be registered against the
respondents. The jurisdictional police have registered a case
for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341,
326, 324, 323, 114, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian penal
Code (for short "IPC") against the accused, on investigation, a
charge sheet was laid by the jurisdictional police for the
offences stated supra.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined, in all, 11 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 11
and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9 and identified MOs.1 and 2.
The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5
for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section
149 of IPC. Respondent No.4 was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Respondent No.6 was acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 114 read with Section 149
of IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the accused for the
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section
149 of IPC. Consequently, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 /
accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo three years simple
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324
read with Section 149 of IPC. The respondent No.4 / accused
No.4 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred an
appeal against the acquittal of the respondents for the offence
under Section 326 of IPC and also inadequacy of the sentence
for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Considering the
submissions of the State and also the respondents, the
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the
same, the State / petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
5. Heard Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the petitioner / State and
Ms Lathashree D L, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri
D.C.Deepak, learned counsel for the respondents.
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
6. It is the submission of learned High Court
Government Pleader (for short "HCGP") for the petitioner /
State that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by
the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent
findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law.
7. It is the submission of learned HCGP that, the
Appellate Court ignored the evidence and failed to appreciate
the law properly and passed the impugned judgment which
requires to be set aside. It is his further submission that, even
though the evidence of eyewitness and the evidence of the
Doctor clearly supported the case of the prosecution with
regard to the injury which PW.1 had sustained, the Appellate
Court and the Trial Court failed to consider the nature of the
injury and proceeded to acquit the accused for the offence
under Section 326 of IPC, which is erroneous and requires to be
set aside.
8. It is further submitted by learned HCGP that, the
sentence imposed under Section 324 of IPC is not proper and
the Courts below ought not to have imposed fine only
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
considering the seriousness and weapons used by the
petitioners, some deterrent measures should have been taken
by imposing imprisonment also. Making such submissions,
learned HCGP for the petitioner / State seeks to allow the
revision petition and set aside the concurrent findings recorded
by both the Courts below.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Ms.Lathashree D.L.
appearing on behalf of Shri D.C.Deepak, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 6 / accused, submits that PW.7 - Doctor
who stated to have treated PW.1, in his evidence, has deposed
that the injuries which PW.1 had sustained are grievous in
nature, however, has not produced any x-ray to show that
PW.1 sustained fracture. In the absence of production of x-ray,
it cannot be said that PW.1 sustained fracture. Hence, the
Courts below rightly acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the
offence under Section 326 of IPC and convicted the accused
Nos.1 to 3 and 5 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. The
respondents herein have paid the fine amount imposed by the
Courts below. Having submitted thus, learned counsel for the
respondents prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
judgments of the Courts below, the Appellate Court and the
Trial Court consistently held that, in the absence of production
of x-ray, the conviction in respect of the offence under Section
326 of IPC cannot be sustained. Even on perusal of the entire
records and also evidence of PW.7, no such x-ray is produced
to substantiate the fracture or grievous hurt.
11. This Court consistently held that, to prove the
fracture injury, x-ray must be produced by the prosecution to
substantiate the injuries which are of such nature as stated
supra. Prima facie this Court is satisfied with the findings given
by the Courts below in recording the acquittal in respect of the
offence under Section 326 of IPC.
12. As regards the conviction in respect of offence
under Section 324 of IPC is concerned, except PW.1, the so-
called eyewitnesses have turned hostile and not supported the
case of the prosecution and also considering that the
complainant and the respondents are living in the same
locality, sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below appears
NC: 2023:KHC:23679
CRL.RP No. 196 of 2016
to be proper and interference with the said findings may not be
warranted.
13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 28.08.2013 in C.C.No.753/2008 on the file of
the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,
at Nanjangud and its confirmation judgment and
order dated 28.09.2015 in Crl.A.No.23/2014 on the
file of the Court of the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Mysuru, are confirmed.
iii) Since the petitioner has already paid the fine
amount imposed by the Trial Court for the offence
punishable under section 324 of IPC, securing the
presence of the accused is not required.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
