Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Jatti Gouda vs State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100238 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O JATTI GOUDA,
AGE 40 YEARS, R/O HOSAD,KEMBAL,
MAHIME, TALUK HONAVAR - 581334
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.P. KANDAGALL, ADV)
AND:
Digitally signed by
J MAMATHA
Location: HIGH
J COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MAMATHA DHARWAD
BENCH, THROUGH P S I. HONAVAR P.S.
DHARWAD.
Date: 2023.03.25
11:18:51 +0530
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, PIN-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADV.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397
AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.323, 326, 504, 506 IPC & QUASHING THE SENTENCE
IMPOSED ON PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.472/2008 BY LEARNED
PRL. J.M.F.C HONAVAR, DATED 08.06.2011, WHICH IS
CONFIRMED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85/2011 DATED
20.09.2021 BY LEARNED PRL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE
UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 02.03.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Revision petitioner-accused feeling aggrieved by the
judgment of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred as 'First
Appellate Court' for brevity) in Crl.A.No.85/2011 dated
20.09.2021, preferred this criminal revision petition.
2. Parties to revision petition are referred with
their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of
prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on
05.03.2008 at 4:00 p.m, at Mahime Kembal village in
Honnavar taluka, while the complainant was in the
courtyard of her parental house, accused picked up quarrel
with complainant on the pretext that cattle of her parents
went in the land of accused and abused in filthy language
with an intention to cause insult to the complainant.
Accused assaulted with sickle on the right hand palm
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
thereby, caused grievous injuries. When CW.4-mother of
complainant tried to pacify the quarrel, accused kicked on
the chest of CW.4 and gave life threat to both of them. On
these allegations made in the complaint, the investigating
officer after concluding investigation filed charge-sheet
against accused.
4. Accused was secured before the trial Court and
stood trial for the offence punishable under Sections 323,
326, 504, 506 of IPC. Prosecution to prove the allegations
against accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and
the documents as per Exs.P1 to P7, so also got identified
MO.1. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C came to be recorded.
Accused has denied all incriminating material evidence
appearing against him. Accused has not led any defence
evidence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments and
on appreciation of evidence on record convicted the
accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence
as per order of sentence.
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
5. The said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence was challenged by accused before First Appellate
Court under Crl.A.No.85/2011. The First Appellate Court
after hearing both sides dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence imposed by the trial Court.
6. The revision petitioner-accused being aggrieved
by the judgment of First Appellate Court, preferred this
criminal revision petition and contended that both the
Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in proper and perspective manner. The evidence of
PWs.1, 2 and 4 are totally unreliable to prove that PWs.1
and 2 have sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The
injuries found as per wound certificates-Exs.P.3 to 6 does
not correspond with oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4.
There are material discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1,
2 and 4 and there is no concrete evidence to prove that
complainant has sustained grievous injuries in the alleged
incident. Therefore, prayed for allowing revision petition
and to set-aside the judgment of First Appellate Court.
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
Consequently, acquit accused from the charges leveled
against him.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides.
8. The prosecution alleges that incident took place
on 05.03.2008 at 4:00 p.m, in front parental house of
complainant situated at Kambal Mahime village, Honnavar
taluka, on accused questioning cattle of complainant
entering his land. It is alleged that accused abused the
complainant in filthy language, so as to cause insult to her
and assaulted by means of sickle on her right hand palm
thereby, caused grievous injuries. When mother of
complainant-CW.4 came to rescue at that time, accused
kicked on the chest of CW.4, further gave life threat to
both of them. The material witnesses relied by the
prosecution to prove the charges leveled against accused
are injured complainant-PW.1, PW.2-mother of
complainant and PW.4-sister-in-law of CW.1. The said
evidence is sought to be corroborated by the medical
evidence in the form of wound certificates-Exs.P.3 to 6
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
and the oral evidence of doctors-PWs.6 and 7, who treated
injured PWs.1 and 2.
9. PW.1, the injured complainant has deposed to
the effect that on 05.03.2008, accused picked up quarrel
with her on the pretext of her cattle having entered the
land of accused, accused by means of sickle has assaulted
on the right hand. When her mother came to pacify the
quarrel, accused has kicked on her chest. Accused has left
the place by giving life threat. Thereafter, she had gone to
Government hospital, Honnavar for treatment, she was
sent to Shridevi hospital. While she was in the said
hospital, police came and recorded her oral complaint
which she identifies Ex.P.1. PW.2 has deposed to the effect
that about 5 months back, accused quarreled with
complainant on the pretext of her cattle entering the land
of accused. Accused abused the complainant in filthy
language and by means of sickle has assaulted on the
right hand middle finger. When she went to pacify the
quarrel, accused kicked her. Thereafter, herself and
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
complainant came to Government hospital for taking
treatment.
10. PW4 is the sister in law of complainant deposed
to the effect that she has seen the incident that took place
on 05.03.2008 at 4:00 p.m in front of her house. Accused
picked up quarrel with complainant on the pretext of her
cattle entering his land and started abusing in filthy
language. Further, by manse of sickle has assaulted on the
right hand palm of complainant thereby, caused injuries.
When her mother went to pacify the quarrel accused
kicked on her. If the above referred evidence of PWs.1, 2
and 4 is carefully perused and appreciated with reference
to the complaint allegations, then it would go to show that
their evidence is consistent regarding the manner in which
the incident took place in front of house of PW.2.
11. PW.6-Dr.Sarita Shetty, examined the injured
complainant-PW1 and issued wound certificate, further
examined another injured PW-4-mother of complainant
and issued wound certificate-Ex.P4. PW.7-Dr.Sukesh
Shetty, working in Shridevi hospital treated complainant-
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
PW1 and issued wound certificate-Ex.P5 stating that injury
No.1 is grievous in nature.
12. PW.7 has also given opinion on examining the
sickle MO.1. As per Ex.P6, that injury found in Ex.P.5 can
be caused if a person is assaulted by means of sickle. If
the above referred medical evidence is appreciated in the
light of oral evidence of injured i.e., PWs.1 and 2, then it
would go to show that they have sustained injuries in the
incident that occurred on 05.03.2008.
13. The trial Court as well as First Appellate Court
found that accused is guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC. Wound certificate-Ex.P3 of PW.1
would go to show that she suffered lacerated wound on
the dorsum of the right hand at the root of index and
middle finger with tendon injury. The wound measuring
about 4 X 0.5 X 0.5 c.m. The injured was referred to
orthopedic surgeon. PW.6 has admitted in her cross-
examination that she did not found any fracture. PW.7 has
deposed to the effect that injured-PW.1 after taking first
aid treatment on 05.03.2008 in Government hospital
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
Honnavar, she came to Shridevi hospital, Honnavar and he
has taken the X-ray, but he did not found any fracture.
However, PW.1 is of the opinion that injury no.1 shown in
wound certificate-Ex.P5 is grievous in nature. Evidence of
PW.7 would go to show that in spite of no fracture being
found after taking x-ray given opinion that injury no.1
noted in the wound certificate is grievous in nature. The
said opinion is not supported by radiologist report to
ascertain the nature of injury. Therefore, without
production of x-ray film and radiologist report, nature of
injury suffered by PW.1 cannot be ascertained. The gravity
and nature of injury has to be subscribed as clearly laid
down under Section 320 of IPC. Unless x-ray is exhibited
before the Court with radiologist report, Court would not
be in a position to come to the conclusion that injury
sustained by PW.1 is grievous in nature. The burden is on
prosecution to establish the fact by exhibiting x-ray with
radiologist report. The prosecution has not produced either
x-ray film or radiologist report to conclusively hold that
injury No.1 found in Ex.P5 is grievous in nature. The First
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
Appellate Court and trial Court has failed to take note of
these legal requirements in holding that PW.1 has suffered
grievous injury. The mere opinion evidence of PW.7
without there being any supportive document of x-ray and
radiologist report, further in spite of PW.7 having found
that there was no fracture committed serious error in
holding that prosecution has proved the offence under
Section 326 of IPC. However, the evidence referred above
would go to show that injured complainant-PW.1 has
suffered injury over her right hand finger due to assault by
means of sickle. However, the same would attract penal
action in terms of Section 324 of IPC, since prosecution
out of evidence on PWs.1 and 2 and the wound certificate
as per Ex.P.3 has proved that complainant has suffered
injury due to assault of accused by means of sickle which
is a dangerous weapon.
14. The First Appellate Court has held the offence
punishable under Section 506 of IPC is not proved by the
prosecution and the said finding has not been challenged
by the prosecution and as such, the said finding has
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
attained finality. In view of the above stated reasons,
prosecution has proved that the accused has committed
offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
15. The question now remains is about imposition
of sentence. Whether imposition of sentence as ordered by
the trial Court which is confirmed by the First Appellate
Court can be legally sustained or not has to be decided.
The trial Court for the offence under Section 323 of IPC
has imposed simple imprisonment of six months and fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one months. Accused was also
sentenced simple imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 504 of IPC in
default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months. The imposition of sentence must be
proportionate to the offence committed by taking into
consideration evidence on record and attending
circumstances. The evidence on record would go to show
that incident occurred due to accused questioning cattle of
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
complainant entering into his land. Accused is brother-in-
law of PW.4, since he is nephew of her husband- PW.5.
16. Under these circumstances, imposition of
sentence of imprisonment would be too harsh and the
same needs to be modified. If the accused is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section
323 and 504 of IPC, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month for each of the offence would
meet the requirement. The offence under Section 324 of
IPC attracts punishment which may extend for three years
or with fine or with both. Keeping in mind above referred
evidence on record, if the accused is sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for two months is ordered, it
would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition filed by revision petitioner-
accused is hereby partly allowed.
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 08.06.2011 passed by the learned
Principal J.M.F.C, Honavar, which is confirmed by learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada,
Karwar in Crl.A.No.85/2011 dated 20.09.2021, is hereby
modified.
The order of sentence imposed on revision petitioner-
accused is hereby modified as under:
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 323 and 504 of IPC, in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month for
each of the offence.
Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of IPC, in default of payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 100238 of 2021
Office is directed to transmit the Trial Court records
with copy of this judgment.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
AM/-.
