Karnataka High Court
Kamaraj @ Kama vs The State Of Karnataka By on 29 May, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
CRL.RP No. 151 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 151 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. KAMARAJ @ KAMA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. THIMMEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT PATLU VILLAGE,
MALURU HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
2. MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. THIMMEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT PATLU VILLAGE,
MALURU HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
Digitally RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
signed by ...PETITIONERS
MALATESH
KC (BY SRI. MANOJ H.C, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: SRI. PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION,
CHANNAPATNA,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
CRL.RP No. 151 of 2021
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(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 AND ORDER DATED
04.11.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNAPATNA IN C.C.NO.483/2014 AND ALSO THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.12.2020 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.32/2019 BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 324 AND 326 R/W 34 OF IPC ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Manoj H.C and the learned High Court
Government Pleader. The present revision petition is filed
challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in
C.C.No.483/2014 confirmed in the Crl.A.No.32/2019.
2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the
disposal of the present revision are as under: On receipt of a
complaint by the Channapatna Rural Police Station, Police
registered a case in Crime No.370/2013 for the offences
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC read
with Section 34 of IPC.
3. On thorough investigation charge sheet came to be
filed and the matter was tried in CC.No.483/2014. Complaint
averments reveals that on 18.10.2013 at about 07:30 a.m., in
Patlu village within the limits of Channapatna Rural Police,
there was a scuffle and all the accused persons picked up
quarrel with the complainant and CW.2 and abused them in
filthy language and assaulted them, resulting in blood injury
and also fracture injury to the middle finger of the right hand to
CW.2.
4. Since the accused persons did not plead guilty, Trial
was held. In order to prove the case of the prosecution in all 9
witnesses were examined by the prosecution as PW.1 to PW.9
and 6 documentary evidence were placed on record which were
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 comprising of complaint, Mahazar,
wound certificates and RTC extracts.
5. Among the prosecution witnesses, Chandrashekhar
is examined as PW.1 and Lokesha is examined as PW.2 and
doctors who have issued Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are marked as PW.3
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
and PW.4. Mahazar witnesses and the Investigation Officer are
other witnesses.
6. On conclusion of the recording of the prosecution
evidence, accused statements as contemplated under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate
wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminating
circumstances and did not choose to place any material on
record in defence evidence nor any written statements as
contemplated under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C.
7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate, heard both the
parties and on consideration of the material evidence on record
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
Section 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted
accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC.
8. State did not choose to file any appeal against the
order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 323,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC but accused persons
preferred appeal against order of conviction under Section 324
and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
9. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records and hearing the parties and on
re-appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed
the appeal filed by the accused confirmed in the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence by judgment dated 5th
December 2020.
10. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, accused
Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present revision petition.
11. Re-iterating the grounds urged in the revision
petition, Sri. Manoj. H.S, learned counsel for petitioner,
vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the material evidence on record and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
12. He further pointed out that seizure of the weapon is
too artificial in the case on hand in as such as PW.1 who has
handed over the weapon to the investigation agency which
throws sufficient doubt about the very case of prosecution
itself.
13. He also pointed out that the injury that has been
found in the Exs.P3 and P4 could have been caused otherwise
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
than in an assault while the injured persons were carrying out
agricultural operations and therefore, the Trial Judge ought not
have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 324, 326 of IPC and sought for allowing revision
petition.
14. He also pointed out that the learned Judge in the
first appellant failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter
and has mechanically dismissed the appeal of the accused
persons and sought for allowing the revision petition.
15. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader
supports the impugned judgment by contending that injured
eye witness testimony has been rightly appreciated by the
learned Trial Judge coupled with the medical evidence in the
form of wound certificate vide Exs.P3 and P4 and therefore the
order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and
326 of IPC by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First
Appellate Court is just and proper.
16. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material available on record meticulously. On such
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
perusal of the material following points would arise for my
consideration.
1) Whether the prosecution has
successfully established that the accused
persons are guilty of the offences
punishable under Section 324 and 326
IPC?
2) Whether the impugned
judgments are suffering from legal
infirmity and perversity and thus, calls
for interference?
3) Whether the sentence is
exccessive?
17. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: In the case on hand,
the injured witnesses namely PW.1 and PW.2 have supported
the case of the prosecution in its entirety. Detailed cross
examination of PW.1 and PW.2 did not yield any material
contradictions so as to dis-believe the case of the prosecution.
The injuries sustained by the injured eye witnesses are
supported by the medical evidence in the form of marking the
wound certificate vide Ex.P3 and P4, issued by PWs.3 and 4.
There is no previous enmity or animosity between the parties
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
so as to falsely implicate the accused persons in the case on
hand.
18. The learned Trial Magistrate himself has acquitted
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC which shows that there is
sufficient application of mind, while appreciating the material
evidence on record.
19. However, in order to attract the offence under
Section 326 of IPC, especially, the fracture in the middle finger
of right hand as is contemplated under Section 320 of IPC, it is
incumbent for the prosecution to produce original X-ray
certificate or at least mark the radiological report.
20. In the case on hand, no such documentary evidence
is placed on record that there is no original X-ray or the
radiological report placed on record. Mere marking the wound
certificate itself would not be sufficient enough to record order
of conviction as against the accused as is held in the case of
State V/s. Sheenappa Gowda reported in (2011) 4 KCCR
2759.
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
21. Therefore, the learned Trial Magistrate was not
justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 326 IPC. Same is ignored by the learned Judge in
the First Appellate Court while passing the judgment in the
Crl.A.No.32/2019.
22. Accordingly, the point Nos. 1 and 2 are to be held
partly in the affirmative, by convicting the accused only for the
offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
23. Regarding point No.3: This Court Having acquitted
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of
IPC taking note of the fact that the revision petitioners were in
custody for a period of 3 days, the period of custody is to be
treated as period of imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC and are directed to pay fine of
Rs.15,000/- each which would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused
revision petitioners for the offence under
Section 324 of IPC, order of conviction passed
by the Trial Court and the same confirmed by
the First Appellate Court, for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC, is hereby
set aside.
iii) The custody period of 3 days already
undergone by the revision petitioners is treated
as period of imprisonment for the offence
under Section 324 of IPC and directed to pay
fine of Rs.15,000/- each.
iv) Out of the fine amount recovered a sum of
Rs.10,000/- each is to be paid to the injured
witnesses namely PWs.1 and 2 as
compensation as is contemplated under Section
357 Cr.P.C.
v) Time is granted to pay the balance amount till
22.06.2024.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18194
vi) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LDC
CT: BHK
