Karnataka High Court

Karthik K N vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                       -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:29718
                                              CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
               CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1120 OF 2021
            BETWEEN:

            KARTHIK K.N.,
            S/O NAGABHUSHAN JOIS,
            AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
            R/AT KADTHUR POST,
            THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
            SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            STATE OF KARNATAKA,
            BY UDUPI TOWN POLICE,
            UDUPI DISTRICT.
Digitally
signed by   REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
MALATESH    HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
KC          AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location:   BENGALURU - 560 001.
HIGH
COURT OF                                                ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
            (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

                   THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C.,
            PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND
            SENTENCE PASSED ON ITS ORDER DATED 01.07.2015 PASSED
            BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND 1 ADDL. J.M.F.C, AT UDUPI IN
            C.C.NO.922/2012    AND   SENTENCE      DATED    02.07.2015
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:29718
                                  CRL.RP No. 1120 of 2021




CONVICTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SEC.353 AND
323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO ORDER OF THE APPELLATE
COURT DATED 15.07.2021 CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.41/2015 AND ALLOW THE RP AND ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE ABOVE CASE.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                      ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri B.N. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-

State.

2. The revision petitioner/accused who suffered an

order of conviction in CC No.921/2012 for the offences

punishable under Sections, 353 and 323 r/w Section 34 of

IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of three months for the offence punishable under

Section 353 of IPC and ordered to pay fine amount of

Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of

IPC and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

under Section 353 of IPC. The same was confirmed in

Crl.A.No.41/2015.

3. At the outset, learned counsel Sri Sunil Kumar

submits that in the event this Court maintaining the order

of conviction, taking note of the fact that the revision

petitioner was only a passenger who unnecessarily got

involved in the incident along with the co-accused and has

been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, may be

dealt leniently by suitably enhancing the fine amount and

setting aside the imprisonment period.

4. Learned HCGP however opposes the revision

grounds in toto and submits that if this Court shows any

leniency or mercy to the revision petitioner, it would send

a wrong message to the Society and people like revision

petitioner gets encouraged by the leniency shown by this

Court and may indulge in similar activities, which would

result in chaos in the society and therefore, sought for

dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

5. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the materials on record meticulously. During the

course of arguments, a memo came to be filed which

reads as under;

"The petitioner humbly submit as follows, the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment, conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2006 passed by the Addi Civil Judge & JMFC at Udupi in C.C. No. 922/2015 convicting the petitioner under section 353 and sentenced to S1 for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo St for fifteen days and further, for the offences punishable u/s 323 to pay Fine of Rupees 3000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months and the same has been affirmed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge at Udupi in Cri. Appeal No.41/2015 by its order dated 15.07.2021. Now the Jebatide petitioner begs this Hon'ble court may be, kindly suspend the 3 months simple imprisonment and the petitioner is herewith agreed to pay the Rs.20,000/-. Hence this memo."

6. The Court has taken note of the contents of the

memo.

7. The facts of the case in brief which are utmost

necessary for disposal of the revision petition is as under;

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

7.1 A charge sheet came to be filed against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323

and 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC by Udupi Town Police

contending that in the road race that occurred on

20.05.2012, at about 9.12 p.m., the accused along with

the co-accused, picked up quarrel with the driver and

conductor of the KSRTC bus and physically assaulted

them, which caused inconvenience to the driver and the

conductor in discharging their official duty.

7.2 Accused pleaded not guilty and there was a trial

held. After due trial, the learned Magistrate considering

the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record,

convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and

sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the

accused filed an appeal before the District Court in

Crl.A.No.42/2015.

7.3 The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court

after securing the records and re-appreciating the material

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused

maintaining the conviction and the sentence.

7.4 Being further aggrieved, the revision

petitioner/accused is before this Court in the light of rival

contentions of the parties.

8. This Court meticulously considered the oral and

the documentary evidence on record.

9. Admittedly, the driver and the conductor who

are the victims in the incident had no previous enmity or

animosity as against the accused to falsely implicate him

in the case. Infact, that is the first occasion that the

driver and the conductor have seen the accused in their

life. On account of the road rage, viz., a private bus in the

process of overtaking the KSRTC bus, the ugly incident

has occurred resulting in physical injury to the driver and

the conductor besides being discharging the official duty

by the driver and the conductor of the KSRTC bus.

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

10. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was a

passenger in the private bus and his duty was to remain in

the bus and there was no necessity for him to get down

from the bus and join the hands with the private bus

driver and the conductor.

11. The materials on record therefore clearly

establishe the overt acts of the present petitioner. Same

has been rightly appreciated and re-appreciated by both

the Courts in its proper manner.

12. Therefore, this Court, that too in the revisional

jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects and

offsetting the findings recorded by both the Courts.

13. It is in this background, the memo of the

revision petitioner needs to be considered while modifying

the sentence, if possible in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

14. Having regard to the nature of the offence and

in the absence of the previous criminal antecedents of the

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

revision petitioner and taking note of the fact that it is an

isolated incident that has occurred on an ill fate day, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the contents of the

memo can be accepted and the imprisonment period

ordered by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First

Appellate Court needs to be set aside.

15. In view of the foregoing discussions, the

following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-

part.

ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First appellate Court is modified as under;

iii. The accused- revision petitioner is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.20,000/- apart from the fine already

NC: 2024:KHC:29718

imposed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in a sum of Rs.1,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and a sum of Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.

iv. Time is granted for the accused to pay the balance amount till 31.08.2024.

v. After receipt of entire fine amount, in addition to the compensation amount of Rs.1,000/- ordered by the trial Magistrate, additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- is to be paid to PW-1- Sri Jathappa.