1 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY 09 SEPTEMBER 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARA35 f i 7%; 1; %
«e J 008
BETWEEN:
Mahadevaiah,
Sfio, Moogegowda
Nanjegowda,
Age 60 years,
Agricultmjitm’ ”
Kuruba Gcxwdiaw ;j_ ” ‘
M. *
T.NaLirasipz;.r.ét ‘Ta}s;1;:,. % ‘ « ‘ – .
Mysoffi Dist; .
M. VShivaz14fm _
Thiganimari ”
‘ …..
* [Age 32’vears;v .,
‘— £5’§;gri(:*..1}i11fis1i;’ ~ . .
” Kitmba’ Géwda,
M; Kcbbch-undi,
T.Narasiipura Taluk,
~ Mysere? Dist.
__ Bio. Begegowda,
V’ V’ Age 26 years,
Agriculturist,
Kuruba Gowda,
k% ‘” . 3%. Maraiah,
M. Kebbehundi,
T.Narasipura Taluk,
Mysare Dist.
Mahadevaswamy,
S/o. Mahadcvaiah,
Age: 35 years,
Agriculturist,
Knruba Gowda,
M. Kebbehtmdi,
T. Narasipzzra Tahzlg ,,
Mysore District. ‘
Mahadcva »
Sfo. .,
Age: 27 ¥veaifs*–. “””‘ ”
Agri§1,{1tuié.$t;* 3;; _,
Kurabavfioxjégda, ‘7?’ § ‘
M. 1’§.ebbehundi;- . _ ‘ * ‘ ‘ ..
T.Na1asipuraTaiu}:, ” –~ .__ ” ‘~ ~”
Mysore’Di”st, ‘_ ‘ ”
l’+<1A:'..af1ak*}as:vas1..i€£1i12.},{_
' V' 'A.ge–:._3'5 yv.:é;:'s,_
. v«.Agréctfr£t}11'i$"E, .
W I’\’ur11ba'{.i{.:’.w;rc3a,
M. K.éb’r,»:%hundi,
T. E-Iarasipura Talulg
V’ * :.M§rs:3rc Dist. _ …Pctitioacrs.
%4(B}; Sri.A.H. Bhagavan, Adv.)
(_…£”–»–~——
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By T. Narasipura Police,
Rep. By The State of Public Prescecuter,
High Court Buildings, _- ” j . * _
Bangalore. ;.Respb’ndet1t.~ H A ,
(By Sri.A.V. Rama?s:rishne.,I~I.(__IGPi)”*
This Crl.R.P is filed under Seetiaigi 39′? £101} of Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the ju;1’ggncz:t,da”tea:i_’33’:5,2007f1’3.8;2&)7 passed
by the Civil Judge (JI”.~Di}.._) &;g T. Narasipura in
C.C.Ne.263f2()O3 and eenfir1izedt};e_i”*c¥;’de:f. dated 21.8.2008
passed by the III Addl. Di’siristA afid.V”e.S6SVSiC§1ii€” Judge, Myeere, in
Cr1.A.No.257!20(}’7″.’*3.’* _
eiitfiiseien along with I.A.I/O8 this
day, the Gear: 1nad”€’1i1£§i13C?lI(n§’i’i1gi –
Pjetificsnem I tciiéihefizin, who were respectively accused Neel
{§;iii”:f£~.Tvici;i?6;3f2003 an the file ef the learned Civil Judge
Narasipura, Mysore District, have challenged
‘ the legeiityi” correctness of the judgment and erder ef convietien
< ggxdiieseiitence dated 23.6.2007 passed in the said case convicting the
V' ._._"V'p:etiV{iener accused Nos}, 3, 4 & 6 for the offence under Sectien 323
{PC and sentencing them to pay a fine ef R5:.1,G0{);'- each in
(-_J"\-v*""\_,z'
default to undergo SI fer six months, and also canviafing the
petitioner-accused N031, 2 and 5 for the ofiénce u/s 3.2_é 'a;;d
sentencing them its undergo SI for two years fifie:
Rs.50(}z'~ each, in default, to undarge Sllifor iv
2. Though this case is Iistedmgay £c.r%a;d::;ig;;io;:%,A: is g,;g¢n H13
fer final disposal by consent of Sri. ccfiilnsel for the
petitioners and the ieafrlécf T Staie ‘i?11ubli§(_: .: ?r<:_nsecutor and their
arguments on meritskizje heaidf judgment and
order sf convi5;tiéé1_1._ the degasitions of all the
prosecutiim wit1a§§é;s§:::;;..fiécrngituficea-rrtiiicate, charge-sheet and FIR etc.,
copies of xaéhigh by the learned counsel far the
..- »9_etitic7r£e:rs.__LA' _ 'A « ….. .. w
I _ that arises for my consideratian in this
1 VV rcvi si:;'£i pcf_titiv c$§jiAT:;is, "Despite acquitting all the accused Nos.1 to 6
the " afifences under Sections 143, 148 and149 of IPC,
§vfi¢ih_§§.–'the learned IMFC was justified in cenvicting A-1, A-3, A-5
u andI%A-6 for the {fiance under Section 323 of {PC and A-1, A-2 and
(.__r\,——xx
A-5 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC in imposing sentence
as aforesaid ?"
4- My findings on this point is an the a$rtnat1ve.._1_iisof3.1f; as it
(-my-\-r
relates to conviction of accused Nest, 3, 4 andfi i_Jffeni:g
under Section 323 ofIPC and in the agaveiaaaai it-.1″ei:atesi1′,o i
conviction of accused Nosl, 2 and for the ofi’enc.e”uji:de: Sectiensi’ L.
326 of IPC for the following _
5. It is not 4i_;’;– ;jisp1i1tei”ti:ai compiainant
sustained i:1aay’i:1jui*ies.. fracture of two ribs of the left side
of his chest xsisieh are .gfievoiis in nature as defined under Section
“320 0f i Ceansel for the revision petitioners
eon”tentieel ithough the said injuries were grievous in nature, no
mateiiaiiiivasi record to convict the accused N081, 2 and 5
j,{‘ii’os.the offense under Section 326 of IPC for having inflicted the said
°gfi€V0t1S.ii?i!13’Efit:S inasmuch as all the accused caxae to be acquitted of
‘:”i’:he._oifi’ences under Sections 143, I48 riw 149 of {PC and there was
no charge against them of having any common intention amongst
(—_…I”””\.z”‘
6
them for assaulting the injured complainant. He further submitted
that though the said injuries were grievous in nature, the
of stene with which the injuries are said te have
net be held to be a deadly weapon within the ii
of IPC and therefore, the learned JMFC
convicting the accused Neal, 2 a:1d’fer the e1it’enee’_:uii(tet’iSectieniii
326 of [PC
6. Per centre, the Iearneci the judgment
and order ef eonvietienjendeenteriee ur_ueti”tP:e;t~itheugh there was ne
allegation Against they sharing cemmon intentien in
assaulting the eiiitienee of PW] and also the eye-
VV..*eritnessesi.:. clearly indicate that they had such
iiitentieii-Vanc14ithe’viiitij11._red sustained the said injuries during the said
,,,,,..\\._incident_.ee a teéiiiiteieief hitting with stone and therefere, the findings
z-ecerded by learned JMFC in the impugned judgment do not call
fefa.n’y.in&rference in this revisien petition.
,«-…f’**–“–‘N…-
7. On careful reading ef weund certificate, it is seen ‘?W’-«I
complainant Netaraju was found sustained fracture of
and 7″‘ ribs of left side of his chest and other-siif:§ple’–i.:inj_ur£ee.–«..
Further, as iightly submitted by the Iearried cegiiesiai ‘the”‘ie2{i§ie;i
petitieners-accused, since all the aei’;t:’s*,ed eaime Vite ef ‘
offence under Sections 143 the cetzid be
held liable for the respectiveiiiieiiflerti’a:cti§:} ii(;:);;if_eia£r€fi1i reading of the
evidence of PW.1 iflateraju, iiiiigui-satiimpiiihm and that ef the
two eye-witnesseé PW4 Seresh, it could
be seen theyiivihiweicegieisitentiy-i stated in their evidence that
during the saiiiiixicidexice hit with stone on left side of his
eheek, hésetilted with stone on his ieit thigh and accused
1i§ie.€3eiSsaulte§i’vi%ith’h.ands on his back. 1 do eat find even slightest
: ii evidence of three witnesses. Therefere, the
. jv.-vieiimed Magietrate has rightly held that the prosecution has proved
beyend..reheenahle doubt the eccurieace ef the incident. However,
” fi:ere..is no evidence as to any of the accused assaulting either with
iiétene or with any abject on the chest of the injured PWJ. 3:3 as to
r-~….f”—-~”\.«
8
cause the fraetere of the said two ribs. Therefore, theugh the said
injuries were grievous in nature, the learned JMFC was its?
in holding the aeeused Nas.l, 2 and 5 responsible
said injuries and thereby convicting t11″em- feethe e’fi7enee.i’;;ri{£et i i ii
Section 325 of me. This being so, the ampuggelgidgmcniiii
order of conviction and sentence te beset as
it relates to the convictiontfif 5 for the
effence under Seetioii 326 fliesiime deserves ta be
left uedise1rbed_Vasi”it :te’tl1e””eenvictien of accused
Non, 3, and as fthie’ under Section 323 ef IPC. At this
juncture the learned SPP submits that if the
” »eecuse?.ii’«:N§)\s.1,VM’ 2 .5.____axe acquitted of the offence under Section
and 5 also will have ten be convicted for
the 323 of’IPC. There is clear evidence of
. ‘W31, 2 4 that they assaulted on the left side of the back of the
on the left thigh respectively. However, though these
i witnesses have stated in their evidence consistently that A2 assaulted
the injured on the left side of the back with stone, E>:.P3 weeed
6′”–“””””””
certificate dees not reveal any injury, whether simple at on
the we side of the back of the injured. Therefore,
the learned HCGP deserves to be acceptedfin ‘_’agaée§t.
accused “No.5 and it cannot be aoceptefi-in
Hcnee the following T L» — . V ‘A A ‘
The preseai revisicm {is in part. The
impugned judgment’:e:idV sentence insofar as
it relates to vNoe§1′;’ 2 and 5 for the ofience
under Sec:i;i;m,325v {if is’ eat aside. Hewcvet, the accused
No.5 is hemsgbie under Sectien 323 cf me for
– vxsghichfie 1:9: ce£1V’éc1ed.vby the learned IMFC. Therefere, he is
fer the offence under Section 323 of {PC and
senfengea te fine of R.s:.1,(}(3G!- as ordered by the learned JMFC
– _’i n-..resp4ecf other accused Nos.I, 3, 4 and 6. The judgment and
A e;;fde1′-nflconvietien and sentence insofar as it relates to acquittal of
31115.6 accused Nos.1 to 6 for the efience under Seetiens 143 and 148
A cf {PC and 3.13:: as to conviction ef the accused N03,}, 3, is and 6 for
c–..”-“””””””‘-…——-4
the ofimw under Section 323 of we is left undisturbed. If the %
amount is aiready paid by the accused N031, 2 and 5
sentence imposed on them ibr the affence wider’ 2
the same shall be returned to them.
Send a ccpy of this order ta irial far
NG*