Karnataka High Court
Smt. Indramma vs State By Bharamasagara Police on 1 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1351 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. INDRAMMA
W/O BOMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. ARUNA
D/O BOMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. SRI. SANTHOSH
S/O BOMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 4. BOMMANNA
Location: HIGH S/O HANUMAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST
R/AT OBAVVANAAGATHALLI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577501
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A R DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M H SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016
AND:
STATE BY BHARAMASAGARA POLICE
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
CHITRADURGA ON 09.09.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.127/2014
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. This petition is filed against the conviction and
sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 323,
504, 326 read with sec 34 of IPC and ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and six
months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of
IPC and three months for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-
to accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 4 shall pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and accused No.3 shall pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default they shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and joined fine
was imposed to all of them. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and sentence, an appeal was filed and the First
Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this
Court.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that both the Courts have committed an
error in considering the material available on record that
the complaint was lodged on the next date of incident
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
though incident was taken place on 14.07.2012 at 1.30
p.m., and injured went to the hospital around 3.40 p.m.
The counsel also would vehemently contend that the
evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 ought to have been
rejected for false implication and inimical against the
petitioners and medical officer who was treated PW1 has
not been cited as witness and X-ray has not been
produced and as per the medical evidence, offence under
Section 326 of IPC has not attracted and hence, both the
Courts committed an error considering Section 326 of IPC
and ought to have been invoked Section 325 of IPC at any
stretch of imagination and there is no any corroboration in
the evidence of witnesses and witnesses are related to
each other and both the Courts ought to have taken more
care while appreciating the evidence of relative witnesses.
It is also contend that there was a dispute with regard to
running of channel in between the house of PW3 and
accused persons and due to prior enmity, all of them have
deposed against the petitioners. Hence, it requires
interference of this Court exercising the revisional
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
jurisdiction and there is no any legal evidence against the
petitioners.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the State would vehemently contend that PW1 is an
injured witness and PW3, PW4 are the eye-witnesses to
the incident and they deposed that assault was made with
the club and stone and the same are seized and marked
before the Trial Court as MO1 and MO2. The Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court having considered the
material available on record comes to the conclusion that
PW1 who had sustained injury of fracture of elbow and
same is grievous in nature and though doctor who treated
the injured was not examined but other doctor who is in
service examined as PW6 and he deposed that doctor who
treated PW1 is not in service and hence, she was
requested to give wound certificate and accordingly she
has given the same and the Trial Court taken note of
wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P3 considered the
nature of the injury and rightly convicted and sentenced
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
against accused persons and only two years sentence is
passed even for the offence punishable under Section 326
read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record the points that would arise for
consideration of this ct are:
Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting and sentencing the accused persons
and the First Appellate Court committed an
error in confirming the judgment of the Trial
Court and whether it requires interference of
this Court exercising the revision jurisdiction?
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, the scope of revision is very limited
and this Court can interfere with the finding of both the
Courts if the evidence available on record and finding
given by both the Courts are not legal and if order suffers
from its legality and correctness, then this Court can
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
exercise its jurisdiction. In the case on hand, having
considered the evidence of PW1 who is injured who
deposed that there was a galata between PW3 and
accused persons on 14.07.2012 around 1.00 to 1.30 p.m.
and he immediately rushed to the spot and tried to pacify
the galata and at that time, accused persons abused him
in a filthy language and accused No.3 assaulted with club
on his left hand and as a result, his elbow was fractured
and accused No.1 assaulted with stone and accused No.4
fisted on his chest and other accused persons slapped on
his cheek and this incident was witnessed by PW3 and
PW4 and thereafter, PW1 was taken to the hospital and
treated him and on the very next day, PW1 gave the
complaint. In his cross-examination, no doubt, it is
elicited with regard to the relationship between CW2 and
CW3 and PW1 says that when PW3 was making galata
near the house of accused persons and in the incident
spot, accused persons were there and others were
witnessing the same standing on the road and cannot tell
their names.
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
7. The other witness is PW3 who claims to be eye
witness to the incident and she reiterated the evidence of
PW1 and in the cross-examination, she speaks about
abusing in a filthy language and also PW1 had sustained
injuries and blood was found and she claims that she also
sustained injury and she took treatment in the Sirigere
hospital, but, no documents placed in this regard before
the Court. It is also elicited that there is a channel in
between the houses of accused persons and PW3 and
there was an enmity in this regard even prior to the
incident.
8. The other witness is PW4 who is also an eye-
witness and he also reiterates the evidence of PW1 and in
the cross-examination he speaks that it used to take said
incident earlier also and earlier complaint was given and
due to the injury of fracture sustained by PW1, the
complaint was given and PW1 took the treatment in the
hospital and they have also went to the hospital.
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
9. Having taken note of the evidence of PW1, PW3
and PW4, only this Court has to examine whether any
perversity in the finding of the Trial Court having
considered their evidence i.e., PW1 - injured witness, PW3
and PW4 - eye witnesses. In the case on hand, no
contradictions are elicited with regard to the incident is
concerned and they specifically deposed that PW1 was
immediately taken to the hospital and Ex.P3 wound
certificate also discloses that injury Nos.1 and 3 are simple
in nature and injury No.2 is a fracture and grievous in
nature and MO1 and MO2 are also seized which were used
for assaulting PW1. Having taken note of both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record and evidence of
PW1, PW3 and PW4 is consistent and Trial Court in
paragraph 8 taken note of the fact that PW1 and PW4 are
the own brothers, PW3 is the wife of PW4 and they have
consistently stated about the time, place, material objects
from which assault was made on PW1. If they are relative
witnesses also, Court has to consider their evidence
meticulously and Trial Court held that no contradictions
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
found in PW1, PW3, PW4's evidence and same also taken
note of by the Trial Court and delay also taken note of by
the Trial Court in paragraph 9 since injured was taken to
the hospital on the very same day of incident and provided
treatment and the Trial Court also taken note of the
injuries found in Ex.P3. The First Appellate Court also
having re-appreciated both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record in paragraph 30 taken note of
injuries found in wound certificate at Ex.P3 and in
paragraph 32 taken note of with regard to the quarrel
taken place between PW3 and accused persons and in
paragraph 36 held that admittedly there is a delay of one
day in filing the complaint about the incident before police.
Evidence of PW1 and 4 reveals that by expecting
appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4 for settlement, PW1
and 4 made one day delay to file complaint and in
paragraph 42 taken note of evidence elicited with regard
to the incident. When such material considered by both
the Courts, I do not find any error in appreciating both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
the Courts. Hence, no grounds is made out to interfere
with the finding of both the Courts as there is no
perversity. Accordingly, the above point is answered
accordingly.
10. However, taking into note of the fact that
accused persons and complainant are the neighbourers
and there is enmity between them with regard to running
of channel between their houses and same could be taken
note of and this Court can reduce the sentence from two
years to six months considering the nature of injury
committed and in respect of offence punishable under
Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and the Court has
to take lenient view when the common intention has been
considered and the Court cannot distinguish the same
when all of them have participated in the incident since
incident was taken place long back i.e., in the year 2012
and almost a decade has been elapsed and PW1 had
sustained the injury of fracture on elbow, he could be
compensated by enhancing the fine amount by reducing
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4743
the sentence and hence instead of Rs.5,000/- against
accused No.3, it is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- and in
respect of accused No.1 who assaulted with stone is
ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.3,000/-
and accused Nos.2 and 4 assaulted with their hands and
they are ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and
directed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from
today. Out of the amount of Rs.95,000/-, ordered to pay
Rs.75,000/- to PW1 who had sustained the fracture of
elbow and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall vest
with the State. If the revision petitioners fails to deposit
the fine amount as imposed by this Court, the sentence
ordered by the Trial Court would remains. In view of
reducing the sentence enhancing the fine amount, the
revision petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
