Mr. Karthik Ramanujam vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 4496 Kant

                              -1-
                                    CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
                        BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 486 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

MR. KARTHIK RAMANUJAM
S/O LATE C.N.RAMANUJAM
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A NO.361, 11TH CROSS
18TH MAIN ROAD
OPP. PLAYGROUND OF VET SCHOOL
2ND STAGE, J.P.NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 078.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.KARIAPPA N.A., H.P. UNIQUE & CO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY - 560 041.

(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTER
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13-3-
2023 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1166/2018 WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF HON'BLE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-59), BANGALORE CITY AND ETC.,
                                      -2-
                                                 CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:



                                     ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner, being unsuccessful in getting order of discharge by

the Trial Court.

2. The petitioner had filed discharge application under

Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.")

before the Trial Court seeking for discharge from the case

which is registered under Sections 307, 326, 323, 504 and 506

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on

12.12.2016 at about 02.00 a.m., the complainant along with

his friends CWs.2 to 6 had been to the Empire Hotel at

Jayanagar, Bengaluru, for dinner. After finishing the dinner,

they came to take off their car which was parked near NMKRV

College gate. However, they noticed that, another car Ford

Endeavour bearing its registration No.KA-03-MK-9747 was

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

parked behind their car. When the complainant was not able to

take off his car, there was a quarrel between the car owners.

It is further stated that, when CW.1 - Sandeep Nagaraj

intervened and questioned the accused as to why he was

scolding them, at that time, the accused took off his waist belt

and swung it and folded the belt to his hand and fisted on the

right eye of the complainant. The complainant sustained injury

on his right eye and fell down and became unconscious. It is

stated that, when he regained consciousness, he was in

St.John's Hospital, Bengaluru.

4. A case has been registered against the accused

before the jurisdictional police, the police after registering the

case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet

for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 323, 504,

506 read with 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking to discharge him from the offences. The Trial Court

after going through the charge sheet materials, opined that

there are prima facie materials to proceed against the

petitioner and accordingly, the said application came to be

rejected.

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

5. Heard Shri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel

appearing on behalf of Shri Kariappa N A, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

6. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner that the ingredients of Section 307

of IPC cannot be attracted on the basis of the allegations made

out against the petitioner. It is further contended that,

swinging the belt by the petitioner only for the self-protection

from being assaulted by the other group, it cannot be

construed as an attempt to murder, since the belt is not a

dangerous or lethal weapon.

7. It is further submitted that, to attract the

ingredients of Section 326 of IPC, there must be grievous hurt,

which must have been caused by the dangerous weapons or

means. The belt / waist belt alleged to have been used in the

said quarrel is not a dangerous weapon or any other means.

Therefore, the said provision also not attracted against the

petitioner. It is the further contention of the learned Senior

Counsel that, even though there are allegations made out

against the petitioner with regard to other offences, the identity

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

of the accused has not been done. Making such submission,

learned Senior Counsel prays to allow the revision petition and

further prays to discharge the petitioner for the offences stated

supra.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

(for short 'HCGP') justified the order of rejection of discharge

application filed by the petitioner and submits that, the

Investigating Officer thoroughly conducted the investigation

and submitted the final report stating that, the petitioner has

committed the offences stated supra.

9. It is his further contention that, the involvement of

the petitioner was established by way of taking CCTV footage of

the said incident. Prima facie there are allegations made

against the petitioner and the said allegations require to be

proved during trial. If this Court arrives at a conclusion that

petitioner has not committed any offence, certainly, it would

affect the credibility of the Investigating Agency and also cause

injustice to the complainant. Having submitted thus, learned

HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

judgments of the Courts below, the points which arise for my

consideration are:

i) Whether the findings recorded by the Trial

Court in rejecting the application for discharge of

the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307,

326, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC are

sustainable?

ii) Whether the petitioner has made out

grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by

the Trial Court in rejecting the discharge

application?

11. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the

averments made in the charge sheet, now it is relevant to refer

the provision under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC, which read

thus:

"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act,

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts.--2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] llustrations

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of] this section.

(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to re- ceive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

12. It is needless to say that, the Courts while

considering the discharge application has to satisfy the

averments of the charge sheet materials. If the Courts prima

facie satisfy the ingredients of the offences, can proceed to

frame the charge. At the time of framing of the charge, a

roving enquiry or detailed analysis of the evidence may not be

necessary. In other words, the Courts must prima facie satisfy

the averments of the charge sheet are true and it can proceed

to frame the charge.

13. On perusal of the above said provisions and read

the same conjointly, it makes it clear that, to attract

ingredients of provision under Section 307 of IPC, there must

be an attempt to commit murder and with intention.

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

Admittedly, in this case, the incident was considered as brawl

and took place for petty reasons. Such being the fact, intention

to commit murder absolutely cannot be inferred on the given

set of facts. The Trial Court should have considered this aspect

while considering the discharge application.

14. Similarly, the petitioner herein alleged to have

assaulted the complainant with his waist belt on the right eye.

The waist belt is neither lethal weapon nor dangerous

instrument. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 320 of IPC

and its punishment under Section 326 of IPC cannot be

attracted.

15. Therefore, the Trial Court should have applied its

mind and discharged the petitioner from the offences under

Sections 307 and 326 of IPC.

16. In the light of the observations made above, the

points which arose for my consideration are answered as

under:-

      Point No.(i)          - "Partly in Negative"

      Point No.(ii)         - "Partly in Affirmative."

17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 486 of 2023

ORDER

i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

ii) The order dated 13.03.2023 in S.C No.1166/2018 on

the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside.

iii) The petitioner is discharged for the offences under

Sections 307, 326, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section

34 of IPC.

iv) The matter is remitted to the Sessions Court and the

Sessions Court is directed to act upon Section 228(1)(a)

of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bss,un