Karnataka High Court
Sri. Srivaraj S/O Mhasalamani @ Krishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SRIVARAJ
S/O MHASALAMANI @ KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O NO. 103, "M" BLOCK
CHAMPION REEFS, K.G.F.-563114.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R B DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BANGARPET POLICE STATION-563114.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by (BY SRI.HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
of
SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
Karnataka
6/8.10.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC., K.G.F., IN S.C.
No.41/2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
CRL.A No. 1189 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The Judgment and Order dated 6.10.2012 and
8.10.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court at KGF in
S.C.No.41/2012, convicting and sentencing the
accused/appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 333 and 353 of IPC is under challenge in this
appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused
the evidence and material on record.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2008
at about 11. a.m., the accused was traveling in a KSRTC
Bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F-915 from KGF to
Bangarpet. The victim/PW.1 was the conductor of the said
bus. Ticket fare was Rs.8/-. The accused gave Rs.100/-
towards the fare. PW.1 returned a sum of Rs.90/- and
there was due of Rs.2/-. Towards the balance amount, the
accused picked up a quarrel with PW.1 and head butted
him on his nose and caused bleeding injury,
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
thereby voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW.1, a public
servant and prevented him from discharging his duty.
4. The trial Court, placing reliance on the evidence
of PWs.1, 2, 4 & 8, held that the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that PW.1 sustained grievous
hurt when he was discharging his duty as a public servant
and it was the accused who assaulted and voluntarily
caused grievous hurt to him.
5. For the offence punishable under Section 333 of
IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default,
to undergo S.I. for three months. For the offence
punishable under Section 353 of IPC, accused was
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to
undergo S.I. for one month.
6. The incident took place on 24.12.2008 at about
11.00 a.m. Ex.P1 is the complaint, as per which the
accused head butted PW.1 on his nose, on account of
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
which he suffered bleeding injuries and in the process
even the accused sustained injury near his eye. PW.1 was
shifted to Government Hospital, Bangarpet for treatment
by the driver of the bus, examined as PW.5.
7. Ex.P7 is the intimation sent by the hospital to
the jurisdictional police. On receiving the same, PW6 has
visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the
injured-PW1 as per Ex.P1. Thereafter, he returned to the
police station, registered a case and issued FIR-Ex.P6. He
seized the blood stained shirt-MO1 produced by PW1,
under a mahazar-Ex.P2.
8. PW1 is the injured. PWs.2, 5 and 8 are the
eyewitnesses. PW3 is the Depot Manager, K.S.R.T.C.,
K.G.F. who has issued Ex.P3-certificate regarding
deputation of PW.1 as a conductor in the bus. PW4 is the
Doctor at the Government Hospital, Bangarpete, who
examined PW1 and issued the wound certificate-Ex.P4.
PW7 is the PSI who completed the investigation and filed
the charge sheet.
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
9. From the evidence of PW3 namely the Depot
Manager and the report submitted by him, which is
marked as Ex.P3, the prosecution has proved that PW1
was working as a conductor in the bus bearing No. KA
07/F-915 on 24.12.2008, when the incident took place.
Even otherwise the defence has not seriously disputed the
said fact.
10. PW1 has deposed that there was a due of
Rs.2/- to the accused and he told the accused that he will
give the change. In spite of that the accused abused him
in filthy language and when the bus reached Bangarpet,
the accused head butted him on his nose and caused
bleeding injuries. He has stated that his shirt was blood
stained and he handed over the shirt to the police. There
is nothing elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve
his evidence.
11. PWs.2 and 8 are the independent eyewitnesses
examined by the prosecution. PW2 has corroborated the
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
evidence given by PW1. He has stated regarding shifting
of the injured to the Government Hospital, Bangarpet.
12. PW5 has deposed about the accused quarrelling
with PW1 and also the injury sustained by him to his nose.
However, he has denied having seen the accused causing
the said injury. Hence, he was treated hostile by the
prosecution.
13. PW8 was treated hostile by the prosecution as
he deposed before the Court that the accused fisted the
injured on his face, due to which he sustained bleeding
injuries to the nose. In the cross-examination conducted
by the Public Prosecutor he admitted that he has given
statement to the police stating that the accused head
butted PW1 on his nose and due to lapse of time, he had
forgotten the incident.
14. The defence taken by the accused is that when
the driver applied sudden brake, PW1 came in contact with
the rod and sustained injury to his nose. However, the
same is not established by adducing any evidence. In
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
view of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 5 and 8, the said
defence taken by the accused cannot be accepted.
15. PW4 is the Medical Officer who treated PW1 on
24.12.2008 at about 12.00 noon. The wound certificate
issued by him is marked as Ex.P4. He has noticed three
injuries as under:
i. Contusion over left eye brow with tenderness.
ii. Tenderness nose with fresh bleeding, fracture of
nasal bone.
iii. Tenderness over chest and abdomen.
16. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that as per Ex.P1, the accused caused only one
injury to the nose whereas, the wound certificate issued
by PW4 is contrary to Ex.P1 as well as the evidence of
PW1.
17. According to Ex.P1 and the evidence of the
injured- PW1, the accused has caused only one injury to
his nose. It is stated by PW1 in Ex.P1 that even the
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
accused sustained injury to his eye while head butting
PW1. This gives an impression that, there might have
been a quarrel between PW1 and the accused. When PW1
himself has not deposed about the injuries sustained by
him to his left eyebrow, chest and abdomen, the wound
certificate issued by PW4 has to be examined cautiously.
18. According to prosecution, injury No.2 i.e., the
injury to the nose sustained by PW1 is a grievous injury.
In Ex.P4, it is stated that PW1 sustained fracture to the
nasal bone. PW4 has stated that one Dr.Subramani, ENT
Surgeon has given opinion and furnished the X-ray
number etc. Hence, PW4 has stated that injury No.2 is
grievous in nature, on the basis of the opinion of
Dr.Subramani, ENT Surgeon. The said doctor is not
examined nor the report submitted by the doctor has been
marked in evidence. X-ray film pertaining to PW1 is also
not produced and marked. Hence, it cannot be held that
the prosecution has been able to prove that PW1 sustained
a grievous injury. The conviction and sentence passed by
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section
333 IPC therefore, cannot be sustained. However,
considering the evidence and material on record,
particularly, the evidence of PW1 and the medical
evidence, it can be safely held that the prosecution has
been able to establish that the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Section 332 and 353 of IPC.
19. The incident took place in the year 2008. More
than 15 years have lapsed. The accused was aged about
48 years at the time of incident. He is an Ex-Central
Government Employee. He has no criminal antecedents.
Now, he is aged more than 62 years. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The Judgment and Orders dated 6.10.2012 and
8.10.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court at
K.G.F. in S.C.No.41/2012, insofar as convicting
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
and sentencing the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 333 of IPC is
hereby set aside.
iii. The accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 332 of IPC and he is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) and in default of payment of
fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one month.
iv. The conviction and sentence passed for the offence
punishable under Section 353 of IPC is
confirmed.
v. The fine amount, already paid if any shall be
adjusted towards the total fine imposed.
iv. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) shall be paid as
compensation to PW1-V.Anil Kumar. The balance
shall be defrayed towards State expenses.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15454
vi. Fine amount shall be deposited before the trial
Court within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB/TL
