Sri Rangaswamy vs State By
2024 Latest Caselaw 5921 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Rangaswamy vs State By on 28 February, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                            -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:8349
                                                      CRL.A No. 1301 of 2012




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2012
               BETWEEN:

               1.    SRI RANGASWAMY
                     S/O SRI.RAMAPPA,
                     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                     A.K.BY CASTE,
                     AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVER,
                     R/AT BABBURU FARM,
                     HIRIYURU TALUK,
                     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH L., ADVOCATE)
               AND:

               1.    STATE BY HIRIYURU
                     TOWN POLICE STATION.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
Digitally      (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANAYA, HCGP)
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:             THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
High Court     SET    ASIDE   THE   CONVICTION    AND       SENTENCE   DATED
of Karnataka
               05.11.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
               CHITRADURGA     IN   S.C.NO.159/2011     -   CONVICTING   THE
               APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 OF IPC.

                      THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
               THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:8349
                                      CRL.A No. 1301 of 2012




                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting

and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence

punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

2. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the

accused to undergo S.I. for a period of one year and to

pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to pay fine, to

further undergo S.I. for a period of one month.

3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and

perused the material on record.

4. Appellant/accused was tried for an offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC before the trial Court.

It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21.06.2011 at

about 8.30 p.m., the accused with an intention to commit

murder, assaulted the complainant - Mahalingappa (PW.1)

with a chopper on his head and left ear causing simple as

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

well as grievous injuries and thereby committed an offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

5. PW.5 - Head constable of Hiriyur Police Station

on receiving the MLC intimation from the hospital at about

9.45 p.m., on 21.06.2011, visited the hospital and

recorded the statement of injured-PW1 as per Ex.P1, on

that basis the PSI -PW.7 registered a case in Crime

No.153/2011 against the accused and issued the FIR -

Ex.P6 to the jurisdictional Court. He conducted the spot

mahazar on 22.06.2011 between 9.00 - 9.45 a.m. The

spot was shown by PW.2, wife of PW.1 and she is the

sister of the accused. Spot mahazar is marked as Ex.P3.

During drawing up of spot mahazar MO.1-blood stained

chopper was seized and it was sent for FSL for

examination.

6. On 26.06.2011 the accused was arrested.

Blood stained T-shirt and a pant (MOs.2 and 3) of the

accused were seized under Ex.P2 and they were also sent

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

to FSL for examination. The FSL report issued by PW.8 is

marked as Ex.P7.

7. PW.1 - injured has deposed that PW.2 -

Hanumakka is his wife. The accused is the brother of his

wife. He has stated that on the date of incident at about

8.30 p.m., the accused barged into his house and picked

up quarrel with him, abused etc and tried to assault him

on his head with a chopper and when he escaped the said

blow fell on his left ear and he sustained injuries. Hearing

the commotion, the neighbours i.e., one Anandamma and

Madhu came to the spot and tried to rescue him, even

then the accused was trying to assault him and then he

ran away from the spot. He has further stated that he was

shifted to the Government Hospital, Hiriyur by his wife,

Anandamma and Madhu and in the hospital, the police

recorded his statement as per Ex.P1.

8. PW.2 is the wife of PW1. She is none other

than the sister of the accused. Anandamma and Madhu

are examined as PWs.3 and 4. They are the independent

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

eye witnesses to the incident. There is nothing elicited in

the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 4 so as to disbelieve

their evidence in so far as the accused assaulting PW.1

with a chopper and causing injuries to his left ear.

9. PW.5 is the Medical Officer who has treated

PW.1 at Hiriyur Government Hospital. The wound

certificate is marked as Ex.P5. As per which, PW.1 has

sustained the following injuries:

1. Cut left ear bleeding to separation of ear.

2. Cut 10 x 2 cm on head.

3. Cut 2 x 1 cm on back of head.

Injury No.1 is stated to be grievous and Injury Nos.2 and 3 are stated to be simple in nature.

10. In Ex.P1, it is stated that the accused assaulted

PW.1 on the ground that he had quarreled with his

mother. In his deposition, PW.1 has stated that he

married PW.2 i.e., the sister of accused and as it was a

love marriage, the accused was nursing ill-will against him

and therefore, he committed the offence.

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

11. The defence has examined the mother of

accused, as DW.1. She has deposed that her daughter

Hanumakka - PW.2 had earlier married one Jayanna and

since he was harassing her, she deserted him. She got

acquainted with PW.1 - Mahalingappa and married him.

PW.1 - Mahalingappa wanted to perform the marriage of

the children of Hanumakka from her first husband and

since they had not agreed for the said marriage, he was

quarrelling with her under the influence of alcohol. She

has further stated that on the date of incident at about

8.00 p.m., when she along with her younger son -

Shivanna were in the house, PW1 picked up quarrel with

them and in the scuffle, he fell on the barbed wire fencing

and sustained injuries. She has stated that the accused

was not present at the scene of occurrence at the time of

incident.

12. In view of the consistent evidence of PWs.1 to

4, the evidence of DW1 that the accused was not present

at the scene of occurrence cannot be accepted. PWs.3 and

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

4 are the independent witnesses. They have categorically

stated that the accused has assaulted PW1 with a chopper

and caused injuries to him.

13. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating

the oral and documentary evidence on record, was of the

view that the offence committed by the accused would fall

under Section 324 of IPC and not under Section 307 of

IPC. It is observed that in view of the inadequacy of

evidence regarding motive, it can be said that the offence

under Section 307 of IPC has not been established by the

prosecution. Further, the learned Session Judge was of

the view that the offence would not attract the ingredients

of Section 320 of IPC.

14. From the evidence of DW1, mother of PW2 and

the accused, it can be gathered that on the date of

incident there was a quarrel and even as per Ex.P1-

complaint, accused picked up quarrel with PW1 on the

ground that his mother was abused by him. The parties

are closely related to each other. It is submitted that

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

presently they are living cordially and after the incident in

question, no untoward incident has taken place. It is

further submitted that the accused was in judicial custody

as under trial prisoner for 22 days i.e. from 22.06.2011 to

14.07.2011. It is submitted that the accused has to look

after his wife and three young children. He is eking out

his livelihood by doing coolie work. The incident is of the

year 2011. Hence, no purpose will be served by sending

the accused to the prison at this stage, instead the fine

amount imposed upon him can be enhanced. Accordingly,

the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is partly allowed.

     ii.   The      Judgment          and     Order       dated
           05.11.2012     passed       by     the     Court   of

Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in SC No. 1159/2011 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is hereby confirmed.

NC: 2024:KHC:8349

iii. The sentence imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is modified as under:

a) The accused/appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

       b)    He shall pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-,
             (Rupees       twenty         thousand       only)    in
             default,           shall         undergo       simple

imprisonment for a period of one month.

c) If the fine amount is deposited, a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be remitted to the State treasury.

SD/-

JUDGE

HB/TL