Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chikkahanumanthaiah @ Kuruda vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1263 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH @ KURUDA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH.
2. SRI. LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BILLAKEMPANAHALLI, BIDADI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-562 109.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE - THROUGH V.C.)
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BIDADI POLICE, RAMANAGARA-562 109,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2016
PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22/2015 BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED BY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
CRL.RP No. 1263 of 2016
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA IN
C.C.NO.709/2011 IN SO FAR AS CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THEM OF THE SAID OFFENCE
BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION.
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 for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent State.
2. This criminal revision petition is filed against the
judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC. Though the Trial Court convicted the
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
324, 341, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of IPC, the same is
modified by the Appellate Court acquitting them for other
offences and confirmed the same for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution
before the Trial Court is that on 29.04.2011 at about 7.10 a.m.
near the complainant's house situated at Billakempanahalli
Village, all the accused with common object to commit the
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
offences indulged in quarrel with the complainant in connection
with usage of 8 feet road and out of them,
Chikkahanumanthaiah @ Kuruda assaulted the complainant with
rod and Lokesh assaulted the complainant with wooden stick.
Padma, Saroja and Rathnamma attempted to pour acid on the
complainant's wife by name Muthamma and son by name
Rudraiah. All the accused abused the complainant in a filthy
language and accused No.3 Narasimhaiah and accused No.4
Harish caused threat to the complainant with dire consequences
by showing the sickle. When the accused were assaulting the
complainant's wife, Narasimhaiah, Ramanna and Thammaiah
intervened and subsided the quarrel. In view of the said
incident, the complaint was lodged and crime was registered in
Crime No.260/2011 and the police investigated the matter and
filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 324, 341, 354, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of
IPC. The accused persons were secured and they did not plead
guilty and hence trial was made by the prosecution and P.W.1 to
P.W.9 are examined and Exs.P.1 to 4 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are
marked and 313 statement of the accused was recorded and
accused did not plead any defence evidence. The Trial Court
having considered the material on record, convicted all the
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
324, 341, 504 and 506B read with 149 of IPC and acquitted the
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354 read with
149 of IPC.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted all the
accused persons for other offences and only confirmed the
sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable
under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine
of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months.
5. The State has not filed any appeal against the
acquittal order passed by Appellate Court. Accused Nos.1 and 2
have filed this revision petition before this Court challenging the
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 read
with 34 of IPC.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the complaint is dated 29.04.2011 and the
same was lodged at 10.00 a.m., though allegedly the incident
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
was taken place at 7.10 a.m. The learned counsel would
contend that there are no any independent witnesses. The
learned counsel contend that P.W.7 is the recovery witness and
he says that the police have not seized the rod and club, but the
witnesses have given the same. The learned counsel contend
that the material clearly discloses that there was a dispute
between the parties with regard to usage of passage of 8 feet.
The learned counsel contend that the complainant has converted
the civil dispute as criminal case. The evidence of P.W.2 is that
the incident took place at night and P.W.3 also deposed to the
same effect. There are several inconsistencies in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1, 4 and 5.
These inconsistencies are material and enure to the benefit of
the petitioners for extending the benefit of doubt in favour of
the petitioners. In addition thereto, there are huge
contradictions in relation to assault on P.W.1 by using the rod
and seizure of the same. The learned counsel contend that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the three injuries that are
stated to be found on P.W.1 as mentioned in Ex.P.3 wound
certificate was result of assault by using M.O.1 by the
petitioners. The learned counsel contend that the very
appreciation of the evidence by the Appellate Court as against
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
this revision petitioners is contrary to material on record and
both of them are innocent and in the absence of any sufficient
evidence, convicting and sentencing is erroneous and it requires
interference of this Court and to acquit accused Nos.1 and 2
since there are no corroboration to each other.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the Court has to take note of the
injuries sustained by P.W.1. The learned counsel contend that
the evidence of injured is the best witness and he categorically
deposes that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with iron rod
and club. The wound certificate corroborates with the evidence
of P.W.1 and other witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is the specific
case that accused No.1 assaulted with M.O.1 and accused No.2
assaulted M.O.2. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1, who was also
present at the time of the incident. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye
witnesses and P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the recovery witnesses and
they have also clearly deposed before the Court regarding the
case of the prosecution. P.W.6 is an independent witness. There
is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was a dispute
between the parties with regard to passage and the same is
admitted by the petitioners and the evidence of P.W.8 and
P.W.9, who are the investigating witnesses, corroborates with
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
the prosecution witnesses. The case of the petitioners is total
denial and nothing is explained with regard to the injuries
sustained by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.8 doctor is clear that
P.W.1 had sustained injuries, even though no fracture, but
assault was made with the rod and club. The learned counsel
brought to the notice of this Court the wound certificate Ex.P.3,
which clearly discloses that there was tenderness over the lower
back, abrasions over the front of the left chest measuring 3 x 1
cm. and 1½ x 1 cm. fresh injury, tenderness over the front of
the chest and patient was referred to x-ray of the lower back
and chest and x-ray shows no evidence of any fracture, injuries
1 to 3 are simple in nature. The evidence of P.W.8 doctor
discloses that these injuries could be caused by usage of rod
and club. Hence, there is a clear evidence against the
petitioners that both of them assaulted P.W.1 and there are no
inconsistencies as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and all of them have categorically deposed with
regard to the date of incident as well as timings as 7.10 a.m.
and the complaint was lodged immediately and there are no
contradictions as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned High Court Government Pleader and having
perused the material available on record, the points that arise
for the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed
an error in convicting and sentencing the
revision petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC and
whether it requires interference of this Court
by exercising the revisional jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
Point No.1:
9. Having perused the material on record, it is not in
dispute that the incident was taken place on 29.04.2011 at 7.10
a.m. in front of the house of the complainant. The case of the
petitioners is total denial that no such incident was taken place
and they have been falsely implicated in the case since there
was a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the usage
of 8 feet passage. Having perused the case of the prosecution
and also the defence, it is not in dispute that there was a civil
dispute with regard to the usage of 8 feet of passage. The only
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that civil
dispute is converted as criminal case with an intention to punish
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
the petitioners. It is important to note that P.W.1 is the injured
witness and he specifically says that accused No.1 assaulted him
with rod and accused No.2 assaulted with club and though P.W.3
was having sickle, he only caused the threat. It is important to
note that though conviction order was passed against all the
accused by the Trial Court, the same is reversed by the
Appellate Court. Now the only point for consideration is with
regard to whether accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted P.W.1 with
iron rod and club. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear with regard to
the assault made with iron rod and club, as a result, he fell
down and he identifies his signature in Ex.P.1 complaint. No
doubt, in the cross-examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that at the
time of incident, except these witnesses, no other persons were
there. He categorically says that on the date of accident itself
he gave the complaint. It is suggested that the house was not
given to him and due to that enmity, the complaint was given
and the said suggestion was denied.
10. The other witness is P.W.2. P.W.2 also reiterates the
evidence of P.W.1 and in the cross-examination, he categorically
says that in the morning at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m., he used to
involve in the work of dairy since he is a Secretary of the Milk
Producers Society and categorically says that iron rod and club
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
was given to the police at the time of seizure by collecting the
same and again he says that club and iron rod were lying at the
spot.
11. The other witness is P.W.3 who is the wife of P.W.1
and she also reiterates that there was an issue between them
with regard to usage of passage and also says that she was also
present at the time of incident and witnessed that both accused
Nos.1 and 2 were assaulted P.W.1 with club and iron rod. In the
cross-examination of P.W.3, it is elicited that they are the blood
relatives and also there was a dispute with regard to usage of
passage and it is deposed that there was a festival in the
previous date of the incident and she says that complaint was
given at 8.00 a.m. and her husband was taken to the hospital
and he was there about 3 to 4 days and police also seized the
club and iron rod.
12. The other witness is P.W.4 and he also says that he
had witnessed the incident i.e., both accused Nos.1 and 2 were
having rod and club in their hands and accused No.1 assaulted
with club and in his cross-examination, it is elicited that incident
was taken place near the dairy when he was standing there and
he deposed that C.Ws.4, 5 and 7 went and pacified the galata.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
13. The other witness is P.W.5 and he also says that he
heard the sound when he was inside the house and when he
came out, he saw that accused No.1 was assaulted with the club
and accused No.2 assaulted with the rod.
14. These are the eye-witnesses speak about the
incident and they have also the signatories to the mahazar when
police came and conducted mahazar at 1.30 to 2.00 p.m.
15. The other witness is P.W.6 and he also speaks that
incident was witnessed by him and assault was also witnessed
by him and he says that police also drawn the mahazar. Hence,
it is clear that P.W.5 and P.W.6 speak about the incident and
also the seizure.
16. P.W.7 is the recovery witness who speaks that the
police came and seized the club and rod and mahazar was
conducted around 3.00 p.m. and he identifies M.O.1 and M.O.2
and categorically says that iron rod and club was given by
Rudraiah or Rammaiah to the police and categorically admits
that in front of the house of the accused, his house is situated
but denied the suggestion that having enemity.
17. Other witness is the doctor who has been examined
as P.W.8 since he has treated injured P.W.1 who came to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
hospital with the history that incident was taken place at 7.10
and on examination of P.W.1, he found the injuries which have
been mentioned in Ex.P.3. In the cross-examination, when
suggestion was made that if any person abruptly falls on the
hard surface would sustain such the injuries, for that the doctor
says that only injury No.1 and 3 would cause but not injury
No.2.
18. The other witnesses are formal witnesses of
Investigating Officer who conducted investigation having
received the complaint and filed the charge sheet.
19. This Court re-assessed the evidence on record. The
scope of revision is also very limited and only this Court has to
take note of the legality and correctness of the finding of both
the Courts. Now, the finding of the Trial Court is concerned,
taken note of the evidences and witnesses who were present at
the spot and inured witness P.W.1. No doubt, the very
submission of the learned counsel for the State that best witness
is the injured witness. It is not in dispute that P.W.3 is the wife
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnesses have also spoken about
how the incident was taken place and assault was made. No
doubt, P.W.1 says that assault was made by accused No.1 with
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
iron rod and accused No.2 assaulted with club and P.W.2 and
P.W.3 says the same. P.W.4 and P.W.5 says that accused No.2
assaulted with iron rod and accused No.1 assaulted with club
and there is some discrepancy. But injured witness categorically
says that accused No.1 assaulted with the rod and accused No.2
assaulted with club. The Court has to take note of wound
certificate which is marked as Ex.P3. P.W.8 - doctor's evidence
is very clear that those types of injuries can be caused by the
weapon like M.O.1 and M.O.2 and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2
also proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses. No
doubt, one of the witness says that the Rudraiah and another
person produced the same before the police. But the fact that
mahazar was conducted in between 1.00 to 3.00 p.m., and
though there are minor discrepancies with regard to mentioning
the timing is concerned, but all speak about drawing of the
mahazar in between 1.00 to 3.00 and seized at the spot on the
date of the incident itself and complaint was lodged
immediately. When such material is there, there is no any error
committed by the Trial Court while appreciating both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record. The First Appellate
Court in detail discussed the evidence available on record
particularly taking into note of evidences of all the witnesses and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record and also taken note of the fact that there was no any
cordial relationship between them and petitioners also not
disputes the fact that there was a civil dispute with regard to the
usage of passage of eight feet is concerned. All witnesses speak
that the incident was taken place at 7.10 a.m., and having
considered the evidence of these witnesses, in detail discussed
by the First Appellate Court. There are no contradictions in the
evidence of these witnesses.
20. The Court has to see that whether the evidence of
prosecution witnesses discredited the evidence of witnesses and
there are eye-witnesses to the incident and apart from that
medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution that
P.W.1 had sustained injuries and type of injuries also mentioned
at Ex.P.3 and doctor evidence also corroborates the same. When
such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court with regard to
appreciation of evidence available on record is concerned.
21. The issue before this Court is only for convicting
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section
324 of IPC. No doubt, the injuries are simple in nature.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
However, the specific case is that accused persons used the club
and rod for assaulting and nothing is found to discredit the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. When assault was made with club
and iron rod, the First Appellate Court also rightly had taken
note of the material available on record. Hence, I do not find
any error in the finding of both the Courts. Only scope of
revision is if the finding of the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court is not legal and it suffers from any perversity
while appreciating the evidence, then only this Court can
exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any
such circumstances warranted in the case and minor
discrepancies will occur when the witnesses are examined after
long time and mathematical niceties cannot be expected by the
Court. The very contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there are inconsistencies in the evidence also not
found as contended by him and only in order to nurse the
personal grudge, case is filed and converted civil case into
criminal case also cannot be accepted. The Court has to see the
circumstances under which the incident was taken place. I have
already pointed out that there was a dispute between the
complainant party and the accused party with regard to the
usage of passage is concerned and in that connection, the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
alleged incident was occurred. When such being the case, I do
not find any ground to entertain this revision petition with the
finding of both the Courts by exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. Hence, I answer the above point as negative.
22. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners
would vehemently contend that this Court can exercise its
discretion with regard to the sentence is concerned on the
ground that there is no any grievous injuries and there are only
simple injuries. The learned counsel for the State would submits
that the Court has given only the sentence of one year since
both the petitioners/accused have used the rod and club and
this Court cannot reduce the sentence.
23. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties it is emerged in the evidence that the complainant's
party and the accused party are the blood relatives and the
alleged incident is with regard to the usage of the passage by
the parties and the alleged incident was taken place and assault
was made with club and rod and injuries sustained are also
simple in nature. Taking note of said fact into consideration, it
is appropriate to reduce the sentence by increasing the fine
amount imposed by the Trial Court since, the incident was taken
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3650
place in the year 2011 i.e., more than a decade ago.
Considering the said fact into consideration, it is appropriate to
reduce the sentence to six months by imposing fine of
Rs.20,000/- each.
Point No.2:
24. In view of the discussions made, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction
order in respect of Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC
dated 14.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.709/2011 by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. However, sentence is
reduced to six months by enhancing the fine amount to
Rs.20,000/- each. Out of the said fine amount of Rs.40,000/-,
ordered to pay Rs.30,000/- to P.W.1 and Rs.10,000/- shall vest
with the State.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD/SN
