Karnataka High Court

Prashanth Kumar vs State By Electronic City Police on 9 January, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:978
                                                        CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.937 OF 2016
                   BETWEEN:

                   PRASHANTH KUMAR
                   S/O. G. LAKSHMANA,
                   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                   RESIDING AT NO.2880,
                   NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
                   DEVARACHIKKANANHALLI CROSS,
                   BEGUR, BANGALORE -560 068.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. RAJU C N., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE
                   BANGALORE,
                   REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High
Court of           BANGALORE,
Karnataka
                   PIN CODE-560 001.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

                        THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
                   TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN
                   C.C.NO.2411/2010 DATED 29.10.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
                   CJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND
                   CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.70/2011 DATED 20.05.2016 ON THE
                   FILE OF THE PRL. S.J., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
                   BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETR., AND ACQUIT THE PETR., BY
                   ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
                                 -2-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:978
                                         CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016




     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

The criminal revision petitioner has preferred this revision

petition against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore

Rural District, Bangalore in CC.No.2411/2010 dated 29.10.2011

(for short hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), which is

confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.70/2011 dated 20.05.2016.

2. The rank of the parties in this petition are referred

to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 07.10.2009 at about 10.30 a.m. in front of house of

PW1 at Vishwa Priya layout, Begur Hobli, Bangalore, when the

complainant was proceeding in a motor cycle to printing press,

the accused wrongfully restrained the CW1-Sendil Kumar and

slapped on his cheeks with hands and also assaulted on his

chest, face and to his ribs and assaulted on his testicles by

kicking him with legs thereby committed an offence punishable

under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC:978

4. After filing charge sheet the case was registered in

CC.No.2411/2010. In response to summons accused appeared

before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. Charges framed

against the accused for the alleged commission of offences,

same was read over and explained to the accused in the

language known to him, having understood the same the

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has

examined 05 witnesses as PW1 to PW5, 06 documents were

marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On closure of prosecution side

evidence statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.

Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution side

witnesses but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence

on his behalf. During the course of cross-examination of PW3

no material object is marked on behalf of prosecution side

evidence.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides the trial

Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence

punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC and

sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month

NC: 2024:KHC:978

with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section

341 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. In default

of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo a simple

imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Further the accused is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 325 of IPC. In default of payment of

fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three months. The accused has paid the fine amount

of Rs.3,500/- on 05.12.2011.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence the accused has preferred this appeal before

the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.70/2011. The appeal was partly allowed

and the judgment of trial Court convicting the accused for the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 325

of IPC and sentencing him for the said offence was set-aside

and judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of Section

323 of IPC was confirmed. Out of the fine amount Rs.3,500/- is

NC: 2024:KHC:978

deposited by the accused in the trial Court, a sum of Rs.2,500/-

shall be refunded to the accused and out of the remaining fine

amount of Rs.1,000/- a sum of Rs.500/- shall be paid as

compensation to PW1, after expiry of period to prefer revision

against the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by this

judgment which is modified by the appellate Court, the revision

petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

submitted his arguments that the appellate Court has convicted

the accused only for the commission of offence punishable

under Section 323 of IPC and the accused has already paid the

fine amount of Rs.3,500/-. The learned counsel sought for

modification of sentence only to the extent of fine amount.

9. As against this learned HCGP Sri. M.R.Patil has

submitted his arguments that the sentence passed by the

appellate Court is in accordance with law and facts. That there

are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of

conviction for the commission of offence punishable under

Section 323 of IPC and also the sentence passed by the

NC: 2024:KHC:978

appellate Court and sought for dismissal of this revision

petition.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

and on perusal of records, the following points would arise for

my consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to

reduce the sentence passed in respect of offence

punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal

Code?

2. What Order?

11. My answer to the above point is as under:

Point No.1: in the affirmative;

Point No.2: as per final order.

Regarding Point No.1:

12. I have carefully examined the material placed

before this Court. The trial Court has convicted the accused for

offence punishable under Section 341, 323 and 325 of Indian

Penal Code. The Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal

filed by the appellant-accused by setting aside the judgment of

NC: 2024:KHC:978

conviction and order of sentence passed in respect of the

offence punishable under Sections 341 and 325 of Indian Penal

Code and has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section

323 Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Court has also passed

the order to return the fine amount of Rs.2,500/- paid by the

accused as he has been acquitted for the offence punishable

under Sections 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. The alleged

commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of Code of

Criminal Procedure is punishable with imprisonment of one year

or fine of Rs.1,000/- or both. It is the submission of the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner that sentence be

modified only to the extent of fine amount. The fine amount

has already been paid by the accused. On perusal of entire

material placed on record, this Court has noticed that the

accused is not convicted previously for any offence prior to the

commission of alleged offence. Considering the gravity of

offence, age and occupation of the accused, it is just and

proper to reduce the sentence passed by the trial Court which

is confirmed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer

point No.1 in the affirmative.

NC: 2024:KHC:978

Regarding Point No.2:

13. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. Revision Petition is partly allowed;

2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 29th October, 2014 passed in CC. No.2411

of 2010 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore which is

confirmed by the judgment and order dated 20th

May, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.70 of

2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

Rural District, Bengaluru is modified as under:

(i) The accused/revision petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- only;

(ii) The accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the injured PW1;


           (iii) Accused      has     already       deposited         an
                 amount of Rs.3,500/-.                 Out of this

                                               NC: 2024:KHC:978





                amount, the trial Court is directed to