Karnataka High Court
Sri Parameshwar Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
CRL.RP No. 54 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 54 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI PARAMESHWAR NAYAK
S/O ANNAIAH NAYAK
AGED 47 YEARS
R/O THONDOORU VILLAGE
7TH HOSKOTE HOBLI,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
MULYAMANE,
AJJAVARA VILALGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.S.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE - ABSENT-)
AND:
Digitally signed by D
STATE OF KARNATAKA
HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT BY SUNTIKOPPA POLICE STATION
OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.THEJESH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION/SENTENCE DATED
21.01.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.1349/2013 AND ALSO
JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
CRL.RP No. 54 of 2019
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN
CRL.A.NO.13/2014.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused/
appellant challenging the order passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Crl.A.No.13
of 2014 dated 11.10.2018.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on
24.04.2013, at about 10.15 p.m., at Thondooru of Hoskote
Village, in the courtyard of house of PW-1 which was
situated in front of the house of the accused; accused was
quarrelling with his wife and trying to assault her with
sickle. Hearing the commotion, PW-1/Smt.Susheela, who
is the complainant, came out of her house and started
enquiring with the accused as to why he was quarreling
with his wife and assaulting her. The accused being
enraged by the said enquiry, tried to assault her with a
sickle on her head; to escape from the assault, the
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
complainant raised her left hand. The sharp portion of the
sickle hit on her left hand finger, causing cut injury as well
as fracture of metacarpal bone of middle finger. Again,
accused assaulted on her head with the sickle and cause
bleeding head injuries. He also abused PW-1 in filthy
language and threatened her with dire consequences, if
she tried to interfere in his family affairs. PW-1 raised hue
and cry and neighbor started coming to the spot.
Thereafter, accused threw the sickle at the spot of the
incident and left the spot of the incident.
3. PW-1 had sustained bleeding injuries. She had
been to Government Hospital at Madikeri, wherein she was
treated. Thereafter, on the next day, she went to
Suntikoppa Police Station and lodged a complaint as per
Ex.P1.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, police
registered a case in Cr.No.47 of 2013 for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 and 506 of the
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, hereinafter referred to
as IPC).
5. The complainant police investigated the case,
recorded the statement of witnesses, drawn the mahazar
and collected the required documents. It was revealed in
the Wound Certificate/Ex.P4 that PW-1 had sustained
grievous injuries. Considering the same, the Investigating
Officer charge-sheeted the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC.
The investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet
before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Madikeri (for short 'Trial Court'), which was registered in
C.C.No.1349 of 2013.
6. The Trial Court secured the presence of the
accused. Copy of the charge-sheet and enclosures were
supplied to him. After hearing both the parties, Trial Court
had framed the charges for the above said offences.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
7. The prosecution to prove its case examined
PWs-1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to 4 and one property
as MO-1 and closed its evidence. The learned Trial Judge
examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and
his answers were recorded. The accused did not lead
defence evidence.
8. The defence of the accused is total denial of the
case of the complainant and it was also suggested to PW-1
that she had sustained injuries in some other incident and
to take revenge against the accused, false case was filed
against him. Earlier about seven to eight years prior to
the incident, she had also filed a false case against him
wherein he was acquitted by the Trial Court.
9. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both the
parties and on appreciating the evidenced available on
record, by the judgment dated 21.01.2014 convicted the
accused of the offences punishable under Section 504,
324, 326 and 506 of IPC. The accused was sentenced as
under:
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
"The accused is sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months
and pay fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month, for the offence punishable under
Section 504 of IPC.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and pay
fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month, for the offence punishable under Section
324 of IPC.
The accused is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and pay
fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month
for the offence punishable under Section 506 of
IPC.
The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall
run concurrently".
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
10. The accused challenged the said judgment
before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu,
Madikeri in Crl.A.No.13 of 2014. The learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties
and on re-appreciating the evidence lead by the
prosecution, by the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2018
confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court and has
dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the accused has preferred this revision petition
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
11. There is no representation on behalf of the
revision petitioner and no arguments were advanced on
behalf of petitioner.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned HCGP.
13. The learned HCGP vehemently contends that
both the Courts below on appreciating and on re-
appreciating the materials available on record rightly held
that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. There are no grounds to interfere in the said
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
findings. The First Appellate Court concurred with the
findings of the Trial Court. The grounds of the revision
petition are not tenable. The main ground in the revision
petition is that injuries are simple in nature. However, the
investigating officer charge-sheeted the accused for the
offence under Section 326 of IPC and even the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court accepted the said
contention of the prosecution and convicted the accused of
the said offence. The said finding is arbitrary, illegal and
perverse. No independent witnesses were examined. That
was not considered by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court. These grounds are not sufficient to hold
that the findings of the Courts below is illegal.
14. The learned HCGP further submits that the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is
very limited. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence
as done in the case of an appeal. It can interfere in the
impugned order only if it is satisfied as to the correctness,
legality, propriety of the findings of the Court below. In
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
this case, as per the evidence of PW-8 and the Wound
Certificate given by him, tip of index finger had incise
wound and upper middle portion of middle finger had a
fracture and complete removal of tip of middle finger with
metacarpal bone. It is stated therein that the said injury
at Sl.No.3 is grievous in nature. It is sufficient to accept
the case of the prosecution that PW-1 had sustained
grievous injuries. Therefore, the grounds of revision
petition are not tenable to set aside the impugned orders.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
15. The following questions emerges for my
determination:
"Whether the impugned judgment suffers
from any illegality or infirmity and interference is
required?"
16. As rightly submitted by the learned HCGP, this
is a revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
Jurisdiction of this Court under said provision is limited. If
there is any illegality, arbitrariness or incorrectness in the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
impugned order, then only, this Court can interfere in the
said findings. Therefore, once again re-appreciation of the
evidence is not required.
17. PW-1 is a victim of this incident. She lodged
the complaint as per Ex.P1, on the next date of incident,
i.e., on 25.04.2013 at 12.15 p.m., in Ex.P1, she has
narrated about the incident. Inconsonance with the
allegations made in Ex.P1, she had deposed before the
Court. She had stated that on 24.04.2013 around 10.15
p.m., accused and his wife had a quarrel; the accused
chased her holding a sickle in his hand and they entered
courtyard of her house; hearing the commotion in front of
her house, she came out of house and looking at the
scene, she tried to rescue the wife of the accused. The
accused enraged by the same started abusing her in filthy
language and assaulted on her with a sickle, because of
which, she sustained injuries to the head as well as left
hand fingers. Due to the said assault, her index finger had
injuries and tip of the middle finger was cut. She raised
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
hue and cry; hearing the same, neighbors as well as her
son came out of the house and rescued her. Looking at
the people gathering at the spot, accused threw MO-1 at
the spot and left the spot of the incident. She identified
the sickle used to assault her. She also stated about
drawing up of the mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seizure of
MO-1.
18. PW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by
accused but nothing was brought out to disbelieve her
evidence. The suggestion of the accused to PW-1 was not
probable. The accused did not produce either the charge-
sheet or judgment of the previous case said to be initiated
on the complaint of PW-1, to show that she was in the
habit of filing of false case. If really she had enmity
against the accused, then, why she would take trouble to
rescue the wife of the accused. Therefore, the said defence
made out by the accused is not probable.
19. The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the
evidence of PWs-2 and 7. In the cross-examination of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
said witness also, the accused was not able to bring out
any facts favourable to him. PW-3 is a witness to the spot
mahazar. He is not a material witness. PWs-4 and 5 are
police officials who were present at the time of drawing of
Ex.P2. They have supported the said fact. PW-5 had partly
investigated the matter and PW-6 had also partly
investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet. As
stated earlier, PW-8 is medical officer who had treated
PW-1 and issued Wound Certificate. Inconsonance of
Ex.P4, he deposed before the Court narrating about the
injuries sustained by her and he also identified MO-1,
which could cause such type of injuries. The said materials
are sufficient to believe the case of prosecution and to
convict the accused of the alleged offences.
20. Considering the said evidence, the Trial Court
as well as t he First Appellate Court convicted the accused.
No grounds made out by the revision petitioner to show
that said findings are erroneous. Both the Courts have not
committed any error in convicting the accused. The
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
findings of the Trial Court are in accordance with law and
there are no reasons to interfere with the said findings.
For the reasons assigned above, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the above said question is answered in the
'negative' and pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is dismissed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri
in Crl.A.No.13 of 2014 dated 11.10.2018 confirming the
judgment passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Madikeri in C.C.No.1349 of 2013 dated
21.01.2014 is confirmed.
iii) Forty Five (45) days time is granted to the revision
petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court to undergo
the sentence.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15085
iv) Bail bonds executed by revision petitioner stands
cancelled.
v) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court
Records along with a copy of this judgment, to the Trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DH
