Mohammad Irshad @ Magic Pille vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALDRE
A DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL;V~2--Q(3u3__"__::  I 
BEFORE 0' sd""e°t

THE HON'BLE MR. .1Us*I*IeE    d to

CRIMINAL REVISION PE_1I'I'iON'_'Ia'(§*I. 3190 emoe  

Sri. Mohammad Irstqad 
S_/o. Abdul Rehaman T"iI'u(:hi3I1[;fI.E)ai}.i_;..,  _
Aged about 29 years. '     ' --.

R/0. D.No. l1'?,.'!'aklya-~St!reet,'-   '

Bhatkal. I : Petitioner

(By Sri.      

AND: 

The state or I  I

By   ' l§'o1i.ee. Sfflti _ I1,

UttaIja.I<fiImta:J"t}1dgment of' conviction passed by the trial Court only in

 soi far as it relates to oifence punishable U/S. 504 IPC.

ll However, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the

/Z_D,Lv\r.u>:\L.__



accused-fnetitioner for an offence punishable U/' 353 is

confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the mprosec_:'utior:i'_'v ease' .are "as 

follows: A _ A _
That on 07.08.1999 atebout 3.30 p,1I1; 9,e"vd1récted=l3y

the higher authorities, the G 1,7 9.1..11.g win.

PW.-s.5, 6 & 7 '"==-re "t*"~i1d'91g in the fieiephone
lines at Shadlee:Sh'eet+'AIwe; S_trc§e1;by the side of and on. the
telephone pole  thelllouse of the accused, the

accuse-,petiti;orle1?'l~::9:   ll  abused the lnjured..

"Suiemagaiml "1?:oIi111aA'g9.n."', when the complainant got down

 * «..fT013C{ pole,' AA  eaccused pulled him holding his shirt,

  right cheek and back. Thus, he has been

  for lhc aforesaid otfences.

 .. a3.  s The prosecution in support of its case has

"  also got mar"ed lvio. 1. Th uourte below, on



appreciation of the oral and documentary evidencepeonxricted
the accused-petitioner and sentenced him asA4..?e'_i4flteti'wVheIfeix1

before.

4. Of the witnesses    ':

complainant. He in his evidence hae  on 

date of :,-_:_e¢:- t, when he  dis_.h roi.1jg.h_i§_:__:L_1..__1 «.1.

V T" . -':"-a---

;.1_ .._L .'_'

the accused Cu1.u"" um' * 'eused. 1' ' iangnage 

derogative Wopde' like   when the

complainant"   telephone pole, the
accused"   his"  Slapped on his right

cheek and f'1s.ed en me heck. "is 9" Hence * enwnbemted

by the evidence  'co-workers (We. 5 to '7') who were

 '~    1v---atethe time of incident.

ii'   . careful scrutiny of the matefiel on record, it is

tesuxu 1y' of the injured-

   (PW. 1) which is corroborated by the evidence of
K  _poti1er eyewitnesses (PWs. 5, 6 85 7) coupled with the medical

 evidence in the form of PW.9 amply prove that the accused-

/iQmq.€4x_



u ' o
9 ~ _ 41 A
n.I'1L?.iI1t-'E."..h"i ....1s i'mr.l.y anu

pe""'"*r " 'rein is  of the charges levelled against him

and the prosecution has proyed its case.__";heyond« V. all

reasonable doubt. Both the Courts below,  

of the material on record in proper"pers1i~ective_"i1ave"@1reri.__ 

a. a ught concussion that oetifioners "."€ :g.:ii:ii;3;" oi'; i**'v*in-
committed the offences punisiiaflsley ll/SQ   do not
find any error in   by theflwcourt below
and there is absolutely"  interfere with the

Judgment of  &paLc;'ed;'   = 

6.. ~~~~  lie.w.ever;..'a.s' the sentence, it is

the incident question«...iiad occurred in the year 1999 and

 -  iregets' for the unsavory incident that had

 jietitioner is the first offender and he is the

soie__""bmad'vie:eainer in the family has the _respons_,-Lity to

'53

he were to 1*:-"t behind bars,

   and his family members will be put to untold
9.   and hardship and therefore, a lenient vievtr should be

 taken while imposing sentence of imprisonment.

/{Bu/w-u:LL__.



7. It is noticed that the incident has  the

year 1999 and the petitioner is *1" firt o.iei"ider',w»V_'fcher'-e_ ere

Isl In L\l.I- L [air I

no criminal antecedents and therefore, tI1_e"petitioner' being" ad'

flrst offender he is entitled to 

benefit of provisions of Prohatien of 
the olfence U/S. 353 pu,i1i4sheihie_vL' .1'
'"im fifl" "r  V the 'n"fn'ssions
made by the learned    and looking to
the totalityi-of?'  of the case, this
Court is~of   sentehce imposed by the Courts

*rIn1'1 urn-'I +1-In

   E1  Il'l\JV\.4\.I- III-all'-I lp.Il.\.a

ii" In';
vu -..r nu.-nu: .. ummni  z:n.,a\/\:"._.ra.v r

same is iis.'cie to heA':ooiiified. Hence, the foilowing order is

       

ORDER

Th.e’v’i:”I.je§rision petition is allowed in part. The

the accused–petitioner herein for the offence

” ,.._fl_1_Ji_’.inishabIe U/S. 353 IPC., is confirmed. However, the

sentence of imprisonment for three months and fine imposed

/I Jlu/\ceCiL__.

1-

upon the petitioner for an offence punishable ‘U/’ 8. 35-3 I’1=C.,
is set aside and in modification of the sentence: jjiiposed
upon the petitioner, he is directed to be released’

L e ben 11: of t. .2 provisions of Probation at aofrenaerss Act. is

Petitioner-accused s Lu A a ‘ ‘of

GI
‘CI

– C
F”

9!

Rs.10,000/- with one surety
keep good behaviour :.yeai.; Ffijrthcr, the
accused–petitioner_is of Rs. 10,000/–
namely, Sri: ‘The compensation
amount bevdeposited within a period of
two the accused–petiticner fail to

_ deposit “ihe compensation amount, the same shall be

Sdl’1___