IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2377" DAY OF AUGUST 2010" BEFORE K __ _ Tm: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE "2 CI1m1nalAm3ealNo. l-8'?8-of A Between: 2 I it A A it Basavaraju. S/o. Late Kenipaiah, Aged about 27 years, R/ at. Gandhinagar, Rarnanagaram Town, Ramanagar Taluk, V Bangalore Rural District_.... _ ' V 1' . ..Appel1ant (By Sri. M. Advocate} And: The State by Ramanagarani.' Police Station, ' A Represented'~by" V '_ . State; Public Prosecutor; V. High 'CQ1_,irt Buildinga---« * Majage, HCGP} 'Bangalore. _ ' " ' ...Resp0ndent **$**=E< "(ms ch. A. is filed Under Section 374 of Cr.P.C by "the Advocate for the Appellant praying to set aside the ' i.'o'-iléicigrgnent dated 24.11.2003 in S.C.No.l72/2001, passed by = "f_he,_ Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and dismiss the S.C.No.172/2001 on the file of this Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, "Bangalore. This appeal is coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court delivered the foliowing:-- ' :JUDGMENT:
The appellant was arrayed””as.AcAcu;s’ed
S.C.No.172/ 2001 and his motifer
arrayed as accused No.2.V’A.c:c”t1,sed.v’Nod».
No.2 were tried for underfjsections
355 and 307 of IPC read IPC.
2. The Accused
No.1 for an section 326 of IFC
and offence under section
355 of «her on probation of good
conduct se.c’tioii of the Probation of Offenders
A.ccus.ed i\’I’o’.”1fV was sentenced to undergo
rin’Vip_risAorfImente~ fo1′ a period of one year and pay a fine of
Rs} default sentence for an offence under
fsection of IPC. Therefore, Accused No.1 has filed
N at ‘
-3’…
3. I have heard learned Government Advocate.
The learned counsel for Accused is absent. ‘
4. I have gone through the records.
judgment of the Supreme Cilrourt, of
Dharampal and others Vs.
reported in 2003 AIR scw..jf357, A1″ their
appeal fer disposal on rnerit.s;”‘ V3
5. In brief, the of as follows:
Accused’:ll;\lo.2 Accused No.1.
Accused 'Filature Factory at 1.30 p.rn., in the after (injured) was working in
the Filature~’fa’ctory of ohe Aslam, accused Nos. 1 and 2
there ..andlllV2Xccused No.2 assaulted on the right
._:.c’h_e_ek her foot ware and Accused No.1
asfsaulte.dl:o:nll:the forehead of PW2 with fire wood and
‘-».caused..grieVous injuries to him.
it As already stated Accused No.2 had not filed
.l many appeal against conviction for an offence punishable
under section 355 of IPC. Therefore, the points that
arises for determination are as follows:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved’
reasonable doubt that on 1.1.2G(l1 V’ 4′
1.30 p.rn. when PW2+_Mal1adeVraa;1ah’ V’_’was_g if”
working in Filature fof
situated at Rarr1anagar—-own.
assaulted on forehead H V S fire V
wood and,.caused——g’r’ieVous injuries} to PW2
and theieliyi c<oifr1rnVitted._ an offence
pur1ishable.._ Hun-de'r_ section of IPC‘?
(ii) izthe -.:~learn6’d Judge has
a:[iii)’ _A _ *
7. l’ orderftofibringt”home the guilt of the accused,
prosecution.’ ha_s”exatnined PWs- 1 to 9, got marked
it f§’?._and material objects as per MO. 1.
and 3 are stated to have witnessed the
oceizlrrence;:”” They have supported the case of
prosecution during the examination– in– chief and
lsuppflorted the defence during the course of cross-
VV Wexaxnination. Therefore, their evidence is not of any help to
J\_; ‘ C£.,~x_.,9»’-fiA—~-
prosecution. The learned Trial Judge has directed to
proceed against PW1 and PW3 for offences punishable
under sections 191 and 193 IPC. ‘Fherefore_,;'”We–i’are_V”lcft« _
with evidence of injured/ PW2–Mahade_\ffa1ah:: «.
medicai evidence given by PW4-Dr. if
9. PW2 has deposed that on theldate oft ;
he was working in the Fi1ature«.:Factor$f’of orie lékslam in
Ramanagariown. Accused21.i’s._’the~tr1other–ir1-law of
PW2. v1z., she is the Aimotherfb of wife of PW2.
Accused No.2′: elder ubrojther’ oi”second wife of PW2
by (;A1′.”_iVV”1′.lVl.2001, Accused No.2
came tothe where PW2 was working
and Vq_uestion_ed~_ti*1e’*.PW2 why he had assaulted his
‘-secoridi.._wiieJayarri’ala. PW2 pacified her and sent her
he No.1 and 2 came there and
AcAcu:sed.-Notsllllpicked up fire Wood and assaulted on the
.”*”«.__f”back and forehead of PW2. He was taken to General
A at Ramanagar. He lodged the first information
“at; about 6.30 P.M. on the same day.
examined on 25.8.2003 have deposed that, Accused
No.1 had assaulted PW2 with fire wood piece.
factory of Aslam. However, at the ir1stance_j’of«’ H
cousnel for the defence, their cross- examination«.wa_s 2 0′
deferred. During their cro=ss–.~» eexarninationf-a..,__
10.10.2003, these witnessesuhaxre-,.
deposing that they had not ocvveurrence
and Accused No.1 ass«auitiug
ll. PW4.=Dr.Th.a1’1au’VahV ” détvosed that on
1.1.2001 at Mahadevajah
in and found following
injurieisz. 0 if if H
(1) l,a’ce_rat.e.d over the right parietal region
size X 2 inch, skin deep bleeding
…ete..t and
bleeding from the right ear.
P’Af4 has opined that injury No.1 was grievous in
_ 0′ natiire and injury No.2 was simple in nature.
$4».
12. The first information relating to occurrence
was lodged by PW2 at 3.00 p.m. on 1.1.2001. There was
no delay in lodging the first information. Th,eri3-foife,
notwithstanding the hostility shown by _
and the evidence of PW2 [injured] and ‘*
of PW4 would amply prove that’-._the_y”Accuisecil
assaulted PW 1. with a fire to
him. A
13. The next “fo1f{.,lrie’te3frn’iri.ation is as to
whether the injury 1\l’o}i” ‘ PW2 was a
grievous under” section 320 of IPC. As
could sl’een«from: of PW4, injuries suffered
by PW2 dolizot iritolthe definition of grievous injury
se.etion Therefore, I hold that Accused
caused hurt to PW2 by hitting on
his’-…foreh~eadAlwith fire wood piece and committed an
“‘oxffegr1ce’vptL1nishable under section 324 of IPC.
$514. The next point for determination would be as
A whether the Accused No.1 could be extended benefit
‘\)_ .
available under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, which in fact, has been extended to the
No.2 by the Trial Court.
15. PW2 in his evidence hvas”‘d-e.p0s7-_ed;_,;.it
PW2 is the native of Kolie§gal.a«.a13.;d~
has been residing with .”F”ashpa”, his’
children in Ramanagar \iVhe1’i”;he was
working in the fiiature Srinivasa, he
developed No.1, by
name siitekvas about 16 or 17
years.:V’iPW’2′ thatllvficcused No.1 had warned
PW2 alndlslaid it-Eovvever, they continued their
affair. _ h_ad.adrriitted that he eioped said J ayamala
Ramanagarlyytollvthe house of his paternai junior
uncle” They stayed their for a period of two
mon_ths.ther*eai’ter, they returned to Ramanagar by then,
Jayalnala was carrying two months pregnancy.
Tfiere was frequent quarrels between accused no.1 and
…PW2 and also between Accused No. 1 and Jayamala.
ax).
Wife and he was not prepared to take her to his house.
Therefore, the said Jayamaia was in doldrums.
17. It is clear from the evidence 2
had deceived the said Jayamala.T__
very much annoyed with the-.___deceptive acts’
by PW2. PW2 had s1apped’V}}ayamaia{‘ ifishe had
met him and reques’ted’* as his wife.
This was the iInmed}’at–eh.fno’tive’ No.1 to
assault Ha No.1 had not
carried ‘ had assaulted PW2
with __ was lying in the factory
premisesA.”~-min I am of the opinion
thatjinstead o’f~i.n1posing sentence of imprisonment, it
apiii’ieo_priate to invoke the provision of Section
C1)
e).
18. Therefore, I pass the following:
0 R D E R
The Criminal Appeal is accepted in V I.
The impugned judgment is 4′ ‘
The conviction of ,ac4_cused_ ‘for ;anA.__oife§jr1ce
punishable under Section ii3C’..iS:vset:vfaside.
The accused is anfioifepce punishable
under Section execute
a bond 4′: before the Trial
Court hehavior for a period
oiitwo sum of Rs.5,000/– towards
cost proe’eedir1gs”‘i;n default it shall be recovered
pp refine Vinuiaccordance with the provisions of
secti.ons”-386 and 387 Cr.P.C.
fails to execute bond within a period
rnonths from the date of this judgment, he
V ” shail undergo imprisonment for a period? of three
it months. mo
§”””g*2
f) If the accused does not appear before theffrial
Court, he shall be secured by trial court
bonds as aforestated wiihin the time V’
this order.
g) If the accused refuses to
Trial Court shali issue_,_VflWarraIi”ct._cf _§mpi’i.sbn1’1ient ”
against the accused in (if-.this judgmetlt.
The office is ‘fecords along
with a copy
561?:
Eudge