Karnataka High Court
Mr. Vaman vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1506 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
MR. VAMAN S/O POOVAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT. NEAR KHADGESHWARI TEMPLE,
MADHYA VILLAGE, MANGALURU-575 030.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, MANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY,
THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA ...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY PRAYING
KARNATAKA
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.214/2015 DATED 22.09.2016 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 12.08.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALORE IN C.C.NO.539/2011
AND TO ACQIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/S
326 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 12.08.2015 in C.C.No.539/2011 on the
file of 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M,
Mangaluru, D.K and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 22.09.2016 in Crl.A.No.214/2015 on the file of
Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru,
seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by
the Courts below.
2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as
per their rankings before the Trial Court for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.07.2011 at
about 11.00 p.m at Madhya Village, Surathkal, the
accused said to have quarreled with Smt.Nalinakshi in
respect of distribution of marriage invitation card and
assaulted her with his legs. Smt.Nalinakshi sustained
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
pain and she was taken to hospital for treatment. At that
time, the accused again quarreled with Charan Kumar,
scolded him in a filthy language and assaulted him with
the knife on the right side of the chest and also right side
of the abdomen. Consequently, the said Charan Kumar
sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to
Padmavathi Hospital, Surathkal and later, he was shifted
to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru and he has taken treatment as
inpatient. The respondent police after recording the
statement of PW.2 - Dejappa Poojary lodged a complaint
and FIR was registered in Crime No.147/2011 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 506 of
IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the
charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked
10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and also identified four
material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. The Trial Court after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC and acquitted him for the
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
offences under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC and the same
was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
5. Heard Sri.Jeevan.K, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that though the Trial Court recorded the
conviction against the petitioner for the offence under
Section 326 of IPC, there is no ingredients to attract the
above said provision. Therefore, the conviction ought not
to have been recorded. Moreover, the Courts below have
failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses
properly and consequently, the impugned judgments are
passed, which are liable to be set aside. Making such
submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays
to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and
he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
in recording the conviction for the offence under Section
326 of IPC, it is relevant to refer the provision under
Section 320 of IPC, which reads as under:
"320. Grievous hurt.--The following kinds
of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
First.--Emasculation.
Secondly.--Permanent privation of the sight
of either eye.
Thirdly.--Permanent privation of the
hearing of either ear,
Fourthly.--Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.--Destruction or permanent
impairing of the powers of any member or
joint.
Sixthly.--Permanent disfiguration of the
head or face.
Seventhly.--Fracture or dislocation of a
bone or tooth.
Eighthly.--Any hurt which endangers life or
which causes the sufferer to be during the
space of twenty days in severe bodily pain,
or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
9. On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes it
clear that the ingredients of Section 320 of IPC has to be
proved to record the conviction under Section 326 of IPC.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
10. No doubt, the incident has taken place between the
parties. The evidence of PW.1 would indicate that he was
working as an auto driver. He says that PW.3 was the
wife of PW.2. It is further stated that PW.3 had not
distributed the invitation cards to the wife of the accused
and she was not invited for the marriage, therefore, there
was a quarrel between the wife of the accused and PW.3.
The accused assaulted PW.3 with his legs and made her
to fall on the ground. PW.2 stated to have requested
PW.1 to go to hospital in his auto by taking PW.3. In the
meantime, the accused assaulted PW.1 with knife on the
left side of the chest and caused injuries. PW.1 was
taken to hospital for treatment. Ex.P7 is the wound
certificate issued by the Doctor.
11. PW.7 was a Doctor stated to have treated PW.1 on
10.07.2011 at about 12.45 a.m. He had noticed two
injuries on the body of PW.1 and issued wound certificate
as per Ex.P7. According to him, the injuries sustained to
PW.1 are grievous in nature.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
12. On conjoint reading of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7, it
appears that it is true that the incident had taken place
between the accused and PW.1 and it also shows that
PW.7 had treated PW.1. However, whether the said
injury would come within the definition of Section 320 of
IPC has to be looked into.
13. On perusal of the wound certificate, which is marked as
Ex.P7, the ingredients of the above said provision and its
explanations strictly do not attract. In other words, the
prosecution has not proved the case in respect of the
offence under Section 326 of IPC. When the prosecution
fails to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section
320 of IPC, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC,
which is the penal provision does not gets attracted.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the
Courts have committed an error in rendering the
conviction for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, which
are liable to be set aside.
14. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:12181
CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 12.08.2015 passed in
C.C.No.539/2011 by the 1st Additional
Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Mangaluru,
D.K and the judgment and order dated
22.09.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.214/2015
by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence
under Section 326 of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
UN
