1 CARP 8i€}!.'Z906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT'I3i%N{§3§£0I!§.E--IA 4_
DATED THIS THE 0613 §_3,A.Y_OF IIIJLY«?2§Ira13.3anya Bhat, HCGP.)
I " ' Criminal Revision Pefition is fikcd under Sccfion 40}.
j 'C12 to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentcnce of
1;Ii3.2oo5 in C.C..No. 34012003 and the judgment and oréer.
"tit. 29.11.2035 passed by the f)ist., as S..J., Davangcre in
Crl.A.l'€o. 137/ 2005.
This Criminal Revision Pefifion coming on for hearing,
this day, the Court, made the following:
2 CIi.R.P 81 032906
ORDER
The peiitioner has challenged his
sentence for the oifcnoes under Sections oi: j
a Ina’ : held by the JMFC, channaggpi,
before the Sessions Court.
2. The facts rclcxiam fqr”i;’11eL- purp0V’ “L ._sc of revision are
as under: H ‘ ‘ V A V
PW. 1 B,s:égmy is; a g fié.idegi*v§jjf. Colony of channagxi
Taluk a3:ad=:’ .__afi _Pb-§stV.–Mastcr £11 Chaxmcshpur
V11′ Iage; “”” é;)n1plction of his Work, he
aiongwith Raja; on the katta of the temple of
Chowdarfiinaéé Go§Id_§s~.3 at about 9.30 p.m., the accused
, ‘_ quarreiling with the complainant
Why he talks with his Wife frcqucnfly and the
that his wife is the foxmer President of the
‘}?$1icii1ayath and the pmsent member anti Whenever he
H u égoxviie work, ha has to talk with her and that it should net
.’ ‘L~ c fiistakcn. While the complainant was answermg, the
“accused at once tack out 3. scissor and made an attempt to
assault on his chest. In an cfiiart ta escape the complainant
sustained injury to the right wrist. ‘When he cried, the accused
£3 CILRP SIOEZGG6
has sought for settirxg aside the conviction by
revision. Per contra, the learned High
Pleacier supports the impugned judgment V’ ‘ ‘
Courts below.
6. I have gone evide:11ee_”‘_= the
prosecution and also the fii:1″thev§evidenee.
As could be seen from the incident took place on p.m. when the 011 the katta of the temple aA't*abeut 9.30 p.m., when they
were S£ilEI~_f.1i€t’e; the accused at once started
abusing the a.%.§’t'”Soole Magane” and that he talks
u miueh hie when the complainant explained the
as ‘*i;z>’WI:l3I,_ he has to talk with his Wife i.e., as she was
tile the Grama ?a11chayath and the Member of
‘V the Fapeeaffith, the accused at once made an attempt to
” “ggssaugt the injured with the eeissor which he had brought on
tiavettelzjzest and whibe he made his efforts to escape, PW.}.
” éijtstained the injuxy to his right wrist and on the second
: attempt of assauit by the accused, the ?.W.1 sustained injury
on the abdomen and at that time, it is PWs.2 and 3 who came
8 CILRP Stfiififlflfi
recorded the complaint Ex.P.1 which came to be registered in
Crime No.36/2003 and the complaint Ex.P.1 and the FIR were
sent to the Magstrate. Though there is some delay the
registrafion of the complaint and the receipt of
by the Magistrate, in View of the fact that the
reveals the name of the accused, the”fiin’c2 ‘that
was admitted in the hospital Within ‘the
overruies the possibiiity of tiie tat”?
disaeivantage by the Police the crime
against the accused.
7′. V:i?W’.1′ ;eVidence as to Why the accused
made the assault and he sates that in the
_ éfirst.» whee’ ‘–.tt1e____&a.ccused assaulted on the chest, he
the injuxy to the right wrist and Ex, 13.3
rexreifilst injury on the right wrist. In the second
V .attexti’pt ” the accused, though PWJ tried to escaye,
on the abdomen and injury No.1 pertaxn” s to
the medieai evidence is consistent with the ocuiar
T ” eevieience of PW’. 3, t0 3. Furthermore, P’Ws.2 and 3 Weze present
” at the time of the incident cf assault by the accused and they
consistently state about the accused aseaulting the
19 Cri.RP 81012006
seized the seisscx” M(L).1. The perusal of Ex.P.’.2 reveals that the
scissor was measuring 9 inches in length and 2 inches in width
with a sharp blade. So taking into consideration the fact that it
is a sharp edged Weapon, it Could be held that it is a daiigemus
weapon. The mere fact that it was used. by :§1S
instzmment for cutfing the clothes itself is not a V’
that it is not a dangemus weapon.
10. So far as the injury is -eenceineii, it v
of the learned counsel that the was hefspital for a
day ancfhe and therefom, he claims
that the’riz.1js1y is not a gievous injury. On
this aspecut’ eczfé fl’_1.€ I..”‘l€ViA’£?_.§1:I’,« the provisions of Section 320 [PC
A’ uamqngst the kinds of the hurts mentioned in
‘3e€:’tiOfi–v32Q’_it is sfated as:
— Am: hurt which endangers iife or which
ea’izses Vthe »sufl’erer to he duzing the space of twenty days
V ” ieisevere bodily pain or unable to foiimv his oztizn” my
” : pursuits”,
1 LA?» conic! be seen fivm the nature 0f injury it
endangers the life and hence is a grievous injury as provided
under Section 320 WC. If since, it is established that the hurt
M
V 326 “I§;’C’.
11 Cti.RP 8IE)!2G06
endangers the life of an individual, it is not necessary ‘shot such
a person shouid be treated in the hospital for so
as to call it grievous injuxy under Section 320 I. 4′
suffered the injmy on the a¥adon1e3:;.MfI’}’:1e
the abdomen and thereafter causecta the
intestine. The contents were coining out ‘aa1;;d “there was
treatment to the injured at the he coixlctiilhtavefieollapsed.
In my coxisiderezi view, PW. 1 falls Within
the category of the inju1iesv:”met1fio.t1e<'iA"§,o'Seefion 320 IPC. So
the Weapon ueecigis ei3–.da1igerou:_§"'ivea;3on and the injuxy
sufi'e1ed:__is ._g1"-*ievo12';e_» Vii1jTii1*y 'and -therefore, in my opinion, the
ofience of the provisions under Section
V "be'~§roseeufion examined PWs.4 and '? the persons
wiioiiook to the hospitai. PW.6 is the Doctor who
Kftssuettl .. Vixxjnzy certificate. PWZ9 is the constabie who
"..fa;5pre};entied the accused and produced him before the 138%.
. is the Head constable who recorded the complaint and
" ettbmitted the same to PW.11 the investigating Ofiicer who
registered the complaint am held the investigation. So
considering the material placeei on record, I am of the
54
E2 Cl’i.R? 8I€}i20{}6
considered opinion that the Couxts below were justified in
convicting the petifioner for the offence under Section 326 IPC
and also under Section 506 (2) of IPC as there was a threat of
danger to the life of the complainant and therefore, not
find any justifiable grounds to warrant the
as the conviction of the petitioner for the aboj.fe”~$ai:I’T£”onfii§IicesA V’
are concemeé.
E3. So far as the sentenceis concerned,Tjt’i$’vco1;fcx:1tion. V ”
of the learned counsei that w.a”s~ ioivnyooiog person
aged abbfié ssiivfoyegiég aiftiic o£ the incident. He had
entertaiI§eci”<io1ib–tVVa?oou'tTi being the person who talks
with his Wifefioow fheiffor some dubious reasons and it is
;»_cV:izc;1mst$ii:1c~e:-xthat the incident has taken place. He
jfthere was no taik between the injured and his
wife, "there no necessity for the accused to cause any
',;assau'}"£. Zisvrelevant to note that the petitioner was aged about
A at the time of the incident ané even prior to the
' iotgieleot, they were sitting together taiking for 25 minutes and
" is thezeafter that the accused started abusing the
complaizxant and caused assault with the scissor. So taking
into consideration the age of the accused and the fact that his
54
13 Crl.R§’ 8EGf20{)6
wife has 1:0 be looked after by him and ifhe is continucci~.<;fi1.._thc
custody for a lcmgcf time, his family may be i"
think that tile sentence of two year$»VcrdcIt;ti"'f<–;w.:}*_V.t:1icV: c;aflQ'e:i'ce=
under Section 326 {PC is on the higficr sidzé; the
matter, I answer Point No.1 psirtlgg in é1$5i1'r1a1:i'::é i1_1 *.
negative: and proceed to pass tI:evL4ftJ;Lbavjng:" V
The the conviction for
the offence (2) IPC. The sentence
(the accused) is ordered
to undecgo for a period of one year and to
pay the finc a3._ o1'dcrtE<:I'- "the Trial Court and $0 also for the
V' Jgfiefiée :,_i;§1d'z:1f 506(2) IPC, he is oreicmd to undergo
for a period of one year. Both the
concmmntly. The bail bonds of the pctzitioner
'~.~.. \,(ae::<:ust;i)1stands cancelled. The Trial Sourt is directed in
thc pmsence of the accused to undergo the sentence.
:%;d/-
]UDGE
TL.