Karnataka High Court
Krishnegowda vs State By Hassan Rural Police on 10 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 998 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/O SALAGAME, HASSAN TALUK,
PRESENT ADDRESS:
VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN-573 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARADAMBA A.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE
R/BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560 001.
HARIKRISHNA V ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2018
PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.90/2018 DISMISSING THE
APPEAL THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN IN C.C.NO.5120/2014
(OLD.C.C.NO.197/2010) BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. AND THE
PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment passed in Crl.A.No.90/2018 dated 23.08.2018 by the
Court of V Additional District and Sessions Court at Hassan
(hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), wherein
the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
revision petitioner/accused and confirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (hereinafter referred to
as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.5120/2014 (Old C.C No.197/2010)
dated 07.05.2018.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before
the Trial Court.
3. The abridged facts necessary for disposal of this
revision petition are:
On 08.12.2009 at about 6:30 p.m., the accused-elder
brother of PW.1-complainant got home and picked a row owing
to a property dispute. Following which the accused had verbal
altercation with PW-1; this verbal altercation turned into
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
physical altercation in which PW-1 was assaulted with an iron
chair on his right knee, owing to this he sustained fracture and
grievous bleeding injuries. Further, PW-1 was threatened with
dire consequences. Accordingly, the complainant-PW1 lodged a
complaint before the respondent Police on 08.12.2009 which
came to be registered in Crime No.234/2009 against the sole
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504
and 506 of IPC. Later, during the course of investigation, the
respondent Police apprehended the accused. On completing the
investigation, the Police laid chargesheet before the Trial Court
against the accused for the aforementioned offences.
Accordingly, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of
the offences, framed the charges against the accused and the
same was denied by the accused.
4. In order to prove the charges before the Trial Court,
the prosecution in total examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8,
marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and identified 1
material object as M.O.1.
5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence
placed by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate convicted the
accused for the charges leveled against him and thereby
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
2 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC. Further, a fine of Rs.2,000/- and
Rs.3,000/- was imposed for the offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 of IPC respectively.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the
accused preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate
Court in Crl.A.No.90/2018. On re-appreciation of the
comprehensive evidence on record, the First Appellate Court
confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court and thereby
dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. Challenge to
the same is lis before this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel Smt. Sharadamba
A.R., for the revision petitioner and Sri. Rajath Subramanyam,
the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner that both the Courts collectively failed
to appreciate the comprehensive evidence on record in right
perspective and convicted the accused for the charges leveled
against him. She further contended that the complaint filed by
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
PW.1 was false and concocted and was filed with a diabolical
intent to gratify vengeance as there was a civil dispute between
PW.1 and his brothers; including the accused who was one of
his brothers and in order to deprive the legitimate right of the
accused which was devolved on him by virtue of a Will
executed by his maternal grandfather. Further, it was
contended that, both the Courts below ought to have
appreciated that all the witnesses were interested witnesses
and additionally contended that PW.1-the injured in the alleged
incident has not specifically deposed supporting the case of the
prosecution and PW.2-wife of PW.1 has also not deposed in
consonance with that of PW.1. Alternatively, she contended
that since the revision petitioner and the complainant are
brothers and the alleged incident was caused without any
premeditation, the weapons used in the offence and the part
chosen by the accused clearly establishes that the offence
under Section 326 of IPC does not attract and that at the most
Section 324 of IPC may attract. In such circumstances, in order
to maintain harmony between the family members, reasonable
fine amount may be imposed and compensation may be
ordered to be paid to the injured and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
9. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that both the
Courts after meticulously examining the entire evidence on
record, passed well reasoned judgments do not call for any
interference by this Court. He further contended that the
eyewitnesses to the incident have collectively supported the
prosecution case before the Trial Court. Albeit the injuried-PW.1
sustained fracture on his right knee and also bleeding injuries,
however, no such glaring error was forthcoming in the
judgment passed by both the Courts and the revision scope is
significantly limited in nature. Hence, interference in the
impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this
case.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusing the documents placed before this Court, the
sole point that arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment passed by
the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First
Appellate Court requires any interference by this
Court?"
11. As could be gathered, to prove the case of the
prosecution before the Trial Court, the prosecution
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
predominantly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.8-
Doctor. PW.1-complainant supported the case and he
categorically deposed that on 08.12.2009 at about 6.30 p.m.,
the accused-his elder brother visited his residence and picked a
row leading to verbal and physical altercation, following which
the accused assaulted him with an iron chair on his right knee
owing to this he sustained fracture. He further deposed that he
was forthwith admitted to the hospital and lodged a complaint
as per Ex.P1. He also identified the said iron chair as M.O.1.
This evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the complaint-Ex.P1
lodged by him. PWs.2 to 4 the eyewitnesses to the incident
also reiterated the evidence of PW.1. Further, they also
identified the chair-M.O.1, which was used in the crime.
Additionally, the evidence of Doctor-PW.8 clearly depicts that
PW.1 sustained injuries on his right knee joint and the said
injury is grievous in nature. In such circumstances, there is no
reason to discard the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the medical
evidence of PW.8. Nevertheless PWs.5 and 7 the mahazar
witnesses also supported the prosecution case. In such
circumstances, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubts that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. As far
as the alternative contention is concerned, on careful perusal
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 i.e. the injured and his wife,
they have categorically admitted in their evidence that there
was a civil dispute between them and the accused. Harboring
vengeance on such dispute, the alleged incident was caused.
Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, the entire incident was caused in a spur of
moment on grave and sudden provocation. Further, it is
established that by using M.O.1-chair the accused assaulted
PW.1's right knee. In such circumstances, it could be gathered
that the accused had no such intention to inflict grievous
injuries to PW.1. In the evidence of PW.8-Doctor, it is not
forthcoming as to how many days PW.1 was hospitalized. In
such circumstances, I am of the considered view that, the act
of the accused may attract the offence under Section 324
instead Section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, the revision petitioner
is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
section 324 of IPC. On the question of sentence, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, since
the revision petitioner is on bail from 12.03.2010, instead of
committing him to prison a reasonable fine amount may be
imposed to him for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
Having perused the evidence and materials on record and also
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
relationship between the parties, I am of the considered view
that, a reasonable fine of Rs.1,00,000/- be imposed to the
accused instead of sentencing him to imprisonment for the
offence under Section 324 of IPC by awarding default
sentence. The conviction imposed by the Trial Court in respect
of Section 504 of IPC is liable to be kept intact. Accordingly, I
answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed
to pass the following.
ORDER
i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-
in-part.
ii. The conviction and order of sentence
imposed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.5120/2014 dated 07.05.2018 by the
Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan, which
was upheld by the First Appellate Court i.e.
the Addl. District and Session Judge at
Hassan in Crl.A.No.90/2018 dated
23.08.2018 in respect of the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC is
modified and the accused/revision
petitioner is convicted for the offence under
Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 326 of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
IPC and the accused/revision petitioner is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year
for the offence punishable under Section
324 of IPC.
iii. The conviction and sentence imposed by
the Trial Court and First Appellate Court for
the offence punishable under Sections 504
and 506 of IPC are kept intact.
iv. The accused/revision petitioner is directed
to deposit the entire fine amount as above
within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order
before the Trial Court i.e., Addl. Civil Judge
and JMFC at Hassan.
v. In case the accused/revision petitioner fails
to deposit the fine amount, the learned
Magistrate is directed to secure the
presence of the accused/revision petitioner
and commit him to prison to undergo
default sentence.
vi. If the fine amount is deposited, the learned
Magistrate is directed to intimate the same
to PW.1 and disburse an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to him as compensation
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10133
under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C on due
identification. The balance amount shall be
submitted to the State Treasury.
vii. The Bail bond executed by the
accused/revision petitioner stands
cancelled.
Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with
certified copy of this order forthwith to the Trial Court.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
