Karnataka High Court

L. Mahesh vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:47780
                                                          CRL.A No. 582 of 2013




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 582 OF 2013
                      BETWEEN:

                         L. MAHESH
                         S/O M.N. LEPAKSHAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
                         MARALENAHALLI
                         TUMKUR TALUK.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT

Digitally signed by   (BY SRI T GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE)
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH        AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

                         STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         BY RURAL POLICE
                         TUMKUR
                                                               ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

                           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C
                      PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2013
                      PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & S.J., TUMKUR IN
                      S.C.No.82/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
                      THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 341 AND
                      504 OF IPC AND ETC.,

                          THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

                      CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:47780
                                        CRL.A No. 582 of 2013




                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the accused, praying to

set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on

sentence dated 09.04.2013 passed in S.C.No.82/2012 by

the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru,

whereunder, the appellant - accused has been convicted

for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC.

The appellant - accused has been sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of nine months for the

offence under Section 323 of IPC; simple imprisonment for

fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and

simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 504 of IPC. The

Trial Court has ordered that all the sentences to run

concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that;

(i) on 30.06.2011, at about 2.45 pm., in front of OIC

Petrol Bunk, Lingapura on the service road of N.H-4, on

account of the previous ill-will, with an intent to cause

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

death of PW1 - Sri.S.Shivanna, sitting M.L.A, the appellant

- accused wrongfully restrained him while he was traveling

in his car bearing registration No.KA-06-M-9132,

intentionally insulted him in filthy language, with an

intention to cause his death assaulted him with a cement

brick. Charge sheet has been filed against the appellant -

accused for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 307

of IPC. The case came to be committed to the Sessions

Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge against the

appellant - accused for the offences under Sections 341,

504 and 307 of IPC.

(ii) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution

has examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got

marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and material

objects as MOs.1 and 2. The statement of the appellant -

accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides,

has formulated the points for consideration and passed the

impugned judgment convicting the appellant - accused for

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC and

held that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not

proved against the appellant - accused. The said judgment

of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged

in this appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused

and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused would

contend that;

(i) PW1, in his cross examination has admitted that

the contents of the complaint has been written by one

Sri.Murthy, who is his friend and the same has been sent

through one Sri.Umesh. PW1 - Investigating Officer has

received the complaint given by said Sri.Umesh and

registered a case against the appellant - accused. Said

Sri.Umesh and Sri.Murthy were not examined. PW2 who

is said to be one of the eye witness to the incident has

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

stated in his evidence that stone was thrown by the

appellant - accused to the front side of the car and it got

damaged, but PW1 in his evidence has stated that cement

brick hit by the appellant - accused has damaged the

driver side door glass. Therefore, there is a contradiction

in that regard.

(ii) He further contends that PW2 stated to have

travelling in the Autorickshaw and got down from the

Autorickshaw only after the incident and he stated to have

intimated the same to the police and he has also stated

that the police recorded his statement. The said statement

of PW2 amounts to first information and that is

suppressed. The presence of PWs.2 to 4 who were said to

be the eye witnesses on the spot is doubtful. PW1 in his

cross examination has admitted that he left the office at

2.00 pm., and the incident had taken place at 2.45 pm.,

and from his office to the spot, he has to cover distance of

3 to 4 kms and it can be covered within 15 minutes

pre-supposes that the alleged incident might have taken

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

place between 2.00 - 2.45 pm. He further submits that

PWs.2 to 4 are the followers of PW1 who was sitting M.L.A

at the time of incident.

(iii) He further submits that there are contradictions

in the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are the eye witnesses to

the incident and those contradictions are material

contradictions. He further submits that considering the

evidence of PW1, the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC has

not made out. There is no intentional insult. Therefore,

the offence under Section 504 of IPC is not attracted. On

that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande

Vs.State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in

2013 (5) KCCR SN 561 (SC). He also placed reliance on

the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Sanna Piddappa and others Vs. the State, held

in Crl.A.No.3529/2009 decided on 06.03.2013. He also

placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of

Rajasthan in the case of Sunita @ Sugna Vs. State

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

decided on 24.01.2024. On the above grounds, he prayed

for allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant -

accused.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent - Sate would support the reasons

assigned by the Trial Court. He contends that evidence of

PW1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 - eye

witnesses will prove the offences alleged against the

appellant - accused. The wound certificate - Ex.P4 prove

that PW1 has sustained simple injury on his chest. The

cement brick and the glass piece were found in the car of

PW1 and they were seized under mahazar - Ex.P3. The

spot mahazar - Ex.P2 has been proved by the evidence of

PW6. The Trial Court, considering the evidence on record

has rightly convicted the appellant - accused for the

offences alleged against him. On these grounds, he

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

6. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusal of

the impugned judgment and the Trial Court records, the

following point arises for my consideration;

"Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant - accused for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC?"

7. My answer to the above point is in the negative for

the following reasons;

PW1 is the complainant and the injured and he has

filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. The said complaint Ex.P1

has been sent by PW1 through one Sri.Umesh to the police

station. PW1 has stated that due to the incident, he was

not in a position to go to the police station, therefore, he

has sent Sri.Umesh to the police station. PW10 - A.S.I

has received the said complaint sent by PW1 through

Sri.Umesh. PW10 has stated that on 30.06.2011 he was

in the police station and at that time, one Sri.Umesh came

and gave a written complaint and he has registered the

same in Crime No.215/2011. On perusal of Ex.P1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

complaint, there is an endorsement to the effect that it is

produced by one Sri.Umesh before PW10 on 30.06.2011 at

6.15 pm. There is an explanation by PW1 for he sending

his complaint - Ex.P1 through Sri.Umesh that, as he had

sustained injuries, he was not able to go to the police

station. Therefore, nothing fault can be found with the

said aspect of PW1 sending his written complaint signed

by him through Sri.Umesh to the police station.

8. PW1 has specifically stated in his evidence that on

30.06.2011 while he was driving his car, when he reached

the petrol bunk in Lingapura, the appellant - accused

came in front of his car and he stopped it. At that time,

the appellant - accused was holding the concrete stone

and he abused him in singular stating that he did not get

him job as promised, he will finish him and abused him as

''¨ÉÆÃ½ÃªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ'' and threw cement stone which he was

holding, to the window glass of the car and the glass broke

down and the said cement stone hit on his chest and he

sustained injury. The said evidence of PW1 has been

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are eye

witnesses to the incident. PWs.2 to 4 have also stated in

their evidence about the appellant - accused throwing the

cement brick to the car of PW1 and breaking the said car

glass and causing injury on the chest of PW1. PW2 has

stated that the said cement brick has hit the front glass of

the car and there is a contradiction to the evidence of

PW1. PWs.3 and 4 have stated that the cement brick

thrown by the appellant - accused has damaged right side

front door glass. Therefore, the contradiction in the

evidence of PW2 is not the material contradiction in view

of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4.

9. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he left

his office at 2.00 pm and the incident had taken place at

2.45 pm., and he has covered the distance of 3 to 4 Kms

and he requires 10-15 minutes to cover the said distance.

He has stated that in between, he will meet his well

wishers and he will talk to them, but, on that day, he did

not meet any person. PW1 might have reached the spot

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

at about 2.15 pm. As per the evidence of PW1, the

incident had taken place on 2.45 pm. PW1 has stated that

he was going slowly at 10 Kms/per/hour speed.

Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said that he

reached the spot at 2.15 pm. The said aspect is not the

material aspect to disbelieve the evidence of PW1.

10. PW1 has stated that when he was moving in his car,

the appellant - accused came in front of his car and he

stopped the car and he was driving his car at

10 Kmt/per/hour speed. The appellant - accused

restrained PW1 from proceeding further and that aspect of

the appellant - accused wrongly restraining PW1 would

attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 341 of

IPC.

11. PW1 has specifically stated in his evidence that the

appellant - accused who came in front of his car has

abused him in singular stating as "¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÉßÃ

PÉÆr¸À°®è, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß G½¹PÉÆ¼Àî°®è, ¤£Àß£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

"¨ÉÆÃ½ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ" JAzÀÄ UÀnÖAiÀiÁV ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåvÀÛ¯ÉÃ ¤A¢¸ÀÄvÀÛ¯ÉÃ vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ

¹ÃªÉÄAn£À PÀ°è¤AzÀ £À£Àß §®¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ¨ÁV°£À°èzÀÝ QlQAiÀÄ UÁfUÉ §®ªÁV

PÀ°è¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ£ÀÄ."

12. PW1 was a sitting M.L.A at the time of the incident.

The appellant - accused has abused him and threatened to

kill and those words used by the appellant - accused

amounts to intentional insult. The said intentional insult is

of such a degree which would provoke PW1 to break public

peace or to commit any other offence. What are the

ingredients for the offence under Section 504 of IPC has

been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Fiona Shrikhande, supra, wherein it is held as under;

"Held: Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz.,(a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47780

or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 of IPC."

13. Considering the evidence of PW1, all the above three

ingredients are attracted and therefore, the appellant -

accused has committed the offence under Section 504 of

IPC. Considering the above aspects, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly convicted the appellant - accused for the

offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC.

Considering the gravity of the offences, learned Sessions

Judge has imposed the sentence and the sentence

imposed is proper and adequate and it cannot be said that

it is on the higher side. The appellant - accused has not

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47780