Karnataka High Court
Srinivas Poojary vs The State By Ullala Police Station on 2 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:50
CRL.RP No. 799 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.799 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SRINIVAS POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE GURUVAPPA POOJARY,
R/AT THOTADA MANE,
KOLAY SOMESHWARA VILLAGE,
MANGALORE-575001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY ULLALA POLICE STATION
MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
Digitally
signed by PROSECUTOR, ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF
SANDHYA S ADVOCATE GENERAL , HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-
Location: 560 001.
High Court of
Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED:3.3.14 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DIST. AND S.J., D.K.,
MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.188/11 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT DATED:26.9.11 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.SR.C.J.
AND CJM, MANGALORE IN C.C.NO.96/2009.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:50
CRL.RP No. 799 of 2014
ORDER
This Revision Petitioner/accused has preferred this
Revision Petition against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 26th September, 2011 passed in CC No.96 of
2006 by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Mangalore (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the "trial
Court"), which is confirmed by the First Additional Senior Civil
Judge and CJM at Mangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.188 of
2011 vide Judgment and order dated 03rd March, 2014 (for
brevity, hereinafter referred to as the "appellate court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal are referred to as per their status and rank before the
trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant-
Raghavendra @ Ramesh, has filed a written information with
Ullal Police that on 22nd February, 2009 at 9.30 pm stating that
on the said date at about 5.00 pm, he had been to inspect the
construction of culvert on Kolya Kujumbagadde pathway and
thereafter, he had been to his aunt's house, situate at Kolya
Kujumbadagge and at when returning at 7.30 pm, while he was
NC: 2024:KHC:50
passing the newly constructed culvert, the accused was present
there and abused the informant in filthy language and
questioning him regarding construction of culvert, the accused
has tried to assault the informant with a wooden cudgel. The
informant tried to prevent the accused and while doing so, he
has sustained injuries to his left hand and over his arm. The
informant raised hue and cry and in the meantime the accused
assaulted the complaint on his left leg. In the meantime, one
Chandra came to the spot and tried to intervene in the matter,
but the accused fled from the scene of offence. The injured
was taken to Thokkottu Nethaji Hospital, where he had taken
treatment as an inpatient. Thus, the accused has committed
the offence. Charges were framed by the trial Court. Same
was read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same, the accused has pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked five
documents as Exhibits P1 to P5 and one material object was
marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence,
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
NC: 2024:KHC:50
Procedure was recorded and the accused denied all the
incriminating material found against him but has not chosen to
lead defence evidence on his behalf. But in the course of cross-
examination, PW1, Exhibit D1 was marked.
5. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has
acquitted the for commission of offence punishable under
Section 504 Indian Penal Code and convicted the accused for
commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and was also sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326
Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, the accused
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
The trial Court also ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to PW6-Raghavendra @ Ramesh.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, accused preferred appeal
before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru
in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2011, which came to be dismissed
NC: 2024:KHC:50
on 03rd March, 2014. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the
accused is before this Court in this Revision Petition.
7. Sri Karunakar P, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner submitted that both the Courts have failed to
appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts. The evidence of injured has not been corroborated with
any independent witness and there is no consistency in the
evidence of eye-witness and the injured. He submits that there
was enmity between the injured and accused regarding
property issue. PWs1 and 2 have not supported the case of the
prosecution. On all these grounds sought to allow the revision
petition. He further submits that, if this Court comes to
conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offence,
then the sentence passed by the trial Court be modified, as the
accused has not been convicted for any offence prior to the
alleged commission of offence, so also, considering the nature
and gravity of offence and the injury caused to the revision
petitioner as per wound certificate, the sentence may be
reduced to two days as the revision petitioner has already
undergone two days in judicial custody.
NC: 2024:KHC:50
8. On the other hand, Sri M.R. Patil, learned High
Court Government Pleader, submits that the trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with
law and facts and the appellate Court has also confirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by against
the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence. On
all these grounds sought to dismiss the revision petition.
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of document on record, the following points would arise
for my consideration:
1. Whether the revision petitioner has made out a
ground to modify the sentence passed by the trial
Court which is confirmed by the appellate court?
2. What order?
10. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order
NC: 2024:KHC:50
11. I have carefully examined the material placed
before this Court. It is the case of prosecution that on 22nd
February, 2009 at about 7.30 pm at the place called Kolya
Kujumbagadde, Someshwara village of Mangulore Taluk, on a
public road, the accused, with an intention to commit offence,
assaulted CW1/PW6-Raghavendra @ Ramesh with a wooden
cudgel. As a result, PW6 sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the
accused committed offence punishable under Section 504 and
326 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted the accused
for offence punishable under Section 504 Indian Penal Code
and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326
Indian Penal Code. A perusal of complaint-Exhibit P3, reveals
that the accused has assaulted PW6-Raghavendra @ Ramesh
with wooden cudgel (marada sonte) on his left hand, fore-arm
and the galata took place between the accused and PW6
regarding construction of culvert in pathway of the land
belonging to accused. The alleged incident took place on 22nd
February, 2009 at about 7.30 pm. After the incident, PW6-
Raghavendra @ Ramesh was admitted to hospital with history
of assault and on the same day he has lodged a complaint
against the accused as per Exhibit P3 and case was registered
NC: 2024:KHC:50
by the concerned police against the accused for offence
punishable under Sections 504 and 324 Indian Penal Code in
Crime No.41 of 2009. On the next day, First Information
Report was submitted to the Court at 12.55 pm as per Exhibit
P5. Thereafter, police have visited the spot, conducted spot
panchanama in the presence of panchas, as per Exhibit P1.
The Investigating Officer collected the wound certificate in
which injury No.3 i.e. fracture of left radial (radius bone) is
grievous in nature and injuries 1, 2 and 4 are simple injuries.
Therefore, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against
the accused for the alleged commission of offence. PW1-
Chandrahasa, PW2-Vasanta who are said to be the eye-
witnesses to the incident, have deposed in their evidence as to
the assault committed by accused with MO1. But they have
not supported the contents of mahazar. PW3-Shailesh has
deposed as to the shifting of the injured to the Hospital. PW4-
Dr. Mahabalesh has deposed in his evidence as to the
treatment extended to the injured. He has also as to the
injuries found on Exhibit P2-wound certificate. The evidence of
PW4 has not been challenged by the accused. PW4-Rajesh has
deposed as to the spot mahazar-Exhibit P1. PW6-Raghavendra
NC: 2024:KHC:50
@ Ramesh complainant/injured, has clearly deposed as to the
contents of Exhibit P1 and also the injuries caused to him by
the accused. PW7-M Damodar, Head Constable, has deposed
as to the registering of case against the accused on the basis of
the complaint filed by PW6. The evidence of PW6-injured, has
been corroborated by evidence of PWs1 and 2 and also the
wound certificate Exhibit P2 and deposition of PW4-Doctor. The
trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with law and facts and convicted the accused for
commission of offence punishable under Section 326 Indian
Penal Code. The Appellate Court has also properly re-
appreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
trial Court.
12. On re-examination of the evidence on record, I do
not find any illegality/legal infirmity in the impugned judgment
of conviction passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by
the appellate court.
13. With regard to the sentence imposed by the trial
Court is concerned, the trial Court has convicted the accused
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50
for the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The trial
Court has also passed an order to pay compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to PW6-Raghavendra @ Ramesh. On perusal of
entire material placed on record, this Court has noticed that the
accused has not been convicted previously for any offence prior
to the commission of alleged offence. The alleged incident took
place with regard to construction of culvert in the pathway in
the land belonging to the accused. Exhibit P2-wound certificate
reveals that PW6-Raghavendra @ Ramesh has sustained three
simple injuries and one grievous injury of fracture of left radial
bone. For this reason, the trial Court has convicted the
accused for commission of offence punishable under Section
326 of Indian Penal Code. A perusal of order sheet dated 12th
October, 2009 pertaining to CC No.96 of 2009 reveals that the
accused was produced before the trial Court on 12th October,
2009 and was remanded to judicial custody and that on 14th
October, 2009 the accused was released on bail. The accused
was in judicial custody for three days. Considering the nature
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50
and gravity of offence, age and occupation of the accused, it is
just and proper to modify the sentence by enhancing the
compensation amount. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
14. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Revision petition is partly allowed;
2. Judgment of conviction dated 29th September,
2011, passed in CC No.96 of 2009 by the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore,
which is confirmed by the appellate court by
judgment and order dated 03rd March, 2014
passed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2011 on the
file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mangaluru, are confirmed. The sentence passed
by the trial Court is modified as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:50
(i) Accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three days and sentenced
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal
Code, in default of payment of fine the
accused shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months;
(ii) The accused shall pay compensation of
Rs.15,000/- to PW6-Raghavendra @ Ramesh
under Section 357 of Indian Penal Code.
(iii) Accused/Revision Petitioner is directed to
deposit the fine amount (if not deposited)
along with compensation of Rs.15,000/-
within one month;
(iv) Since the accused has already undergone
three days imprisonment, the same shall be
set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
4. Registry to send the copy of this order along with
trial Court records to the court below.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
