All the sentences of simple imprisonment shall
run concurrently.
3. Order of conviction and sentence got confirmed
4. Essential factual matrix for the disposal of the
In respect of an incident occurred on 22.03.2011 at
about 8.30 p.m. in vadaganal village, Koppal Rural Taluk,
Rural Police Station of Koppal filed a charge sheet against
the accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448,
323, 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). After due trial,
accused persons were convicted and sentenced as referred
to supra.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5415
5. In the incident Gadigeppa-PW.1 and
Siddamma-PW.2 were injured. Among the two, according
to the case of prosecution Siddamma-PW.2 had a fracture
in her left forearm. Learned trial judge taking note of the
same, noting that there was no proper defence nor any
version has been placed by the accused about the
incident, convicted and sentenced as referred to supra.
6. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court re
appreciated the material evidence and confirmed the order
of conviction and sentence.
7. Being further aggrieved by same, accused
persons are before this Court.
8. Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for
revision petitioners contended that the limited revisional
jurisdiction, in the event of this Court upholding the order
of conviction taking note of the fact that there is no X-ray
film or radiological report have not been placed on record,
conviction may be modified by setting aside the conviction
of accused for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC.
Consequently, enhancing reasonable amount of fine for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5415
the remaining offences, revision petition may be allowed
by setting aside the imprisonment as revision petitioners
are the first time offenders.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavara, supports the
impugned judgement.
10. He would further contend that taking note of
presumption available under Section under 114 (e) of the
Evidence Act, the wound certificate issued by doctor who
is examined PW.7, the order of conviction needs to be
maintained.
11. Insofar as the alternate submission is
concerned, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent-State submits that voluntarily accused persons
have picked up the quarrel on account of the previous
enmity. Therefore, the prosecution has sufficiently
established the motive for the incident and but for the
intervention of eyewitnesses namely Huchappa and
Ramanna. The incident would have ended in fatal injuries
to the Siddamma-PW.2 and Gadigeppa-PW.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5415
therefore, no mercy can be shown to the revision
petitioners and sought for dismissal of the revision petition
in toto.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court reconsidered the material on record in the light of
the fact that no X-ray film or radiological report is placed
on record by the prosecution to consider injury caused to
Siddamma-PW.2 as a grievous injury.
13. It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasises that in order to establish an injury as a
grievous injury, especially when the injury is a fracture
injury, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to
place the X-ray film or radiological report as is held in the
case of State Vs. Sheenappa Gowda and Other1.
14. Accordingly, mere oral testimony of PW.7
coupled with wound certificate marked at Ex.P6 and P7
would not be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction
of accused persons for the offence under Section 326 of
2011 (4) KCCR 2759 (DB)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5415
the IPC. Hence, a case is made out for interference insofar
as a offence under Section 326 of the IPC, by exercising
the revisional powers vested in this Court under Section
397 of the Cr.P.C.
15. Having said thus, material evidence placed on
record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of
the revision petitioners for the remaining offences.
16. Consequently, the sentence ordered by trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court also
needs a modification having regard to the fact that, this
Court has acquitted the accused persons for the offence
under Section 326 of the IPC.
17. Taking note of the fact that accused persons
are the first time offenders, enhancing the fine amount
payable by each of the accused in a sum of Rs.25,000/-
(in all Rs.1,25,000) of which portion of the fine amount
can be paid as compensation to Siddamma-PW.2 and
Gadigeppa-PW.2 would meet the ends of justice in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5415
18. In view of the forgoing discussion, following
order is passed.
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. Accused are acquitted for the offence under
Section 326 read with Section 149 of the
IPC.
iii. Conviction of the accused for the remaining
offences is maintained and sentence ordered
by the trial Judge is modified by directing
each of the accused persons to pay
enhanced fine of Rs.25,000/- on or before
30.04.20255.
iv. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on
or before 30.04.2025, each of the accused
persons shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months.
v. Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of
Rs.50,000/- is order to be paid as
compensation to PW.2-Siddamma D/o
Ningappa Uppar and sum of Rs.25,000/-
Gadigeppa S/o Hanumappa Uppar PW.1
under due identification.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5415
vi. Balance fine amount shall be appropriated
towards the defraying expenses of the State.
vii. Office to return the Trial Court records along
with a copy of this order for issuance of
modified conviction warrant.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:PA
