IN' THE HIGH coum' OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGAQORE
{DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2939' A'
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:<:§: A. S.PA'QH§iAf§URE{ ' _
CRIMINAL REmszoNT.EETrri0 §i--%N0. M'
BETWEEN
Mafllcsha,
S] 0 Ramegowda,
Aged about 35 years, V
Agxicultm:-Est, .
R] o Hongada_}.1:sfl1a;_'. V
I-Iettur Hobli, _ " _. . "
Hassan Dist1*it:f.c, _ . PEI'I'I'iONER
(Sri.N. }"*'«.. f{;1H§shgc'3é_§"d}:91','
AND ' ' r
*Yeslu} Station,
V' . Yes11ir,3--.'I£a£isan Disiiiiét. RESPONBENT
HCGP, Adv.)
Revision Petition is filed under Section 39?
R/W CR.P.C. by the Advocate for the petitioncr praying
., this Hon' bit: Court may be pleased to set aside the
' 'iijixdgement ef conviction (it. 8.2.05 passed. in C.C.No, 806/01
(in the file of the 0.} (Jr. D11.) and JMFC, Sakaleshpura and
cenfirmed in Or}. A. No. 16/05 dt. 2.2.06 an the tile 9:" the Add}.
S.J. Hassan.
2
This Criminal Revision Pefition coining on for hearing,
this day, the Court, made: the following:
ORDER
The pctiiicmcr has challenged the judgmgtfii
his conviction for the ofiencc under »$Vecfions”3-4 am}
we on a trial held by the JMFC, in
Criminai Appeal No. E6] 2005 by ‘mg sesTsi§;g;§ _V_Ju§:g7e;
Hassan. ” V’ ‘ 1
2. The facts rt*:1ex};a:1at–f($i’L_ of this revision are
as uI1{1er:TV ” * A.
Tizefe is §etwecn PW.2 Satish and the
aCC1,§S(§C1]péii§t57{)3].CI’V~.IC1f§Ef6ii£§ V It is on 25.1.2001 in the evening at
V, __ abbgit p.m;.S the mother of PWZ2 was I’Btl1I’11iI).g
:5 Tt::;r’v.v4h:(}1§;s;é: a}5ong with her son PW.2 near their Land the
aegfisea quarrftlcd with §–>w.2 Safish and gave threat
of dgufiéy 1:315 lifa and took a jungle wood fallen nearby and
A. g;s’sa;1ité§ pwzz Satish on the heaé near the eye. Thereby PW.2
Z fell dmzm and at that time, the villagers i.e., Puttaswamy
u Gowda and athem intervened mid rescued PW2 Safish. The
injumd was iifted to Sakicshpur Hospital and thcmafiar £9
Eiassan for treatmezat and in the circumstances, PW5
/.
submitted her oral complaint to BC 114 who sent the said
comp}.-aint to PW. 12 and it was regisiereci
No.19?/2001 and thereafter the complaint Ex.P.6_::=;1;r:é’_f
was sent to the Magzlsfiate and as the inci£’§€§_1 1:’=. ‘pi;ébce[ .
Within the limits of Yeslur Poiice Sta;tf;i0n»,::Aii
the saici Police Station. The injuzed wz’–1£}At’:i*eated Hassafi.
then was sent to Nimhans Hesffi1éi»at €15 He had
sufitaine-:3 a severe i1:.ju1yf flzevvinvesfigafion,
zeeorded the statesmen: 0f the the i113’ury
certificate Ex.P,2a1s§;> Ex.P.3 and
seized 1 eompietion of the investigation,
filed the c}:::=gV1″ges,hee.j_t.:’:§§.;§«;%azeiie:a1:;::’&:i accused.
.. “During 1x§t1e_.V’:t:vfiai,A:the prasecution examined Pwsfii to 3
.eiridence got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to
he statement of the accused was recorded
V VV _undef”—Seefie:1′:””313 Cr.P.C1. He has taken the éefenee of total
H a11d ;:1as no’; led any defence evicience. The Txiai Couri
.0’11_iappAfec’mtion of the material on record eenvieied the accused
‘vfor–Ftl1e ofiences under Seeficms 34}, 504 and 326 [PC and
VA ~ ‘erdered the accused to undergo R1. for a period of six menths
for the ofiencc under Secfion 326 {PC and to pay a fine of
R’s.1,(}{}()/– and also ordered iesser sentence for
under Section 504 and 341 IPC. Aggrieved byjhei
and sentence, the accused approached the Cgisuif in
Criminal Appeal No.16/2005 ‘ca.r§e”.;pi’:*be
dismissed vide judgment >0_1jder 2.2i;3(‘I(‘).6. 1
by the coneunent findings i’ee<isx3victi<§it2,_ has
appmached this Court ma
4. I have heard the petitiener and
also the High The points that arise
for my V’ V’
and order convicting the
pefiflenef Aife1’i§he’:LVbifence under Section 341, 504- and
‘ ~ sentence thereon confirmed in the
I afageal ie and perverse?
.. iii is the contention cf the learned counsel for the
2 .. jzxetiigioner that the injury is not grieveus and that MO. 1 is net :31
fiijifierous weapon and therefore he submits that the Courts
ii ‘below committed an illegality in convicnlng the petitioner for the
above said ofience. He therefore submits that at the mast, the
effence would fall under Section 323 [PC and as the pefifioner
i
§
5
was in custady for more than two months, the sentence may be
confined to the period of custody during the trial and he may
be released. Per contra, the laaznad High Court Government
Header supports the judyzlent and orders of the C0qr’?§’bc1oW.
5. Pwxz is the victim. and PW.5 is
injured. Both have supporfxad theVy§:rsion_e3f
It is well-established pxinciple of
does not implicate an innocent not,’i:fie1u$V..*£::’_v
who has many caused the ig t2¥:zVjé’t:r’;§:1sVi:.st:;:1:§;t version of
PWs.2 and 5 that 03 tfie evening at
about ,6.3O came near the land of F’\V.2
Saésh whflle Vlifixvfis with his mother to the
ho}1:§é”qa;a13″£:1i:dV_V_ a3i’id étssauited him with a jungle wood on the
;v’o’;k-,1s inifiaiiy taken to Sakaicshpur Hospital
1 it doctor who mated the injured and shifted
toV__’v'{:t1eai.:’3i1(A§sj[3ifaI at Has:-aan and PWA Heated the injmecl.
Thcméflfir, he was shifted to Nimhans Haspital Bangalore.
is tim injtuy certificattz which mveals that the petitioner
i sustam ed gievous injury and so far as the aaturc: of iajuxy
is concerned, it ia mentionw that there was hmmatoma and
iacerated wound can the head. So far as the fiactum is
6
concerned, a question mark has been put in. ?W.1 though
states that it is a grievous injury, he does not say as to how it
would be called a grievous injury. The pemsai of E:-<.P.2 does
not reveal any such material so that the injuries. ..1t1e;otione€i '
therein fall within the categoxy of the injuries
Section 326 IPC. So also, the evidettoe of P'}'e';1.:£ioes~T§aot xeiieal
any matefiai as regards the nature of
in the absence of any martigaion Ieeord th3!:"th£,:inj11i;ies
grievous, it cannot be the injury
– sustained by F’W.2 is gtfievouai
i?urAtiitte-:1z1o1e?”ss”ao:11d be seen from the evidence of
PWs.2 ondét 5, ‘PW;2..VAWes’*—-§sssaulted with a jungie wooci. The
meesm’emeo.t”of jtingle Wood MO. 3. is not furnished in any
” v.VthcE”‘<:3§ocfu1*§3:ents none of the wimesses have stated as
A re«ga1f£i3V4i§te Ifieesurement of the club. In the circumstances, it
o:Aa:1m,otV_'be that MO. I is a dangerous weapon. In that View
of the in the absence of the Weapon used being not a
éaxtgemus weapon, it cannot be said that the ofienoe falls
the category of Section 326 IPC. In the absence of
positive evidence, it has to be held that PW.2 suffered a simple
injuiy and particularly, when a weapon uses is not a
ciangemus Weapon. Thexeby, the ofience falls under Section
323 IPC.
8. The evidence of the prosecution iL=S..\’V.t’.i}.c
spot mahazar and the club was “its.
the carrier of the first i11for1I1a!:ion:=.gep¢;>rt«.A. 1{3v,_A«12
and 3.3 are the police oiIi£:ia1e wl:V1e.V_’Iia\fe
investigation whereas PW. 12 ceigxpiaint. So
far as PWS. 2 and 5 «exfideechtewis acxzeptabie
and consideringfhe evidence, led,
it cannot be;_” ‘that eeit’£1’er'”t1:ie’:«V’ ii1j.13.fy is gievous or the
weapez; is avv£1e§A31’*geji%a1_1§’?.’»§?ea;poi1. Hence, the conviction of the
petitioner<.fe1* the'–ofi°ence"'~1ii1£ier Section 326 IPC has to be set
asieie and he convicted for the oflence under Section
Them is ampie matetial to pmve the offence under
I 504 IPC. In the circumstamres, so far as the
cei;vi<:t§a)1;.iLi1ider Section 326 WC is concerned, the judment
and e}m..é%;r passed by the 'Trial Court continued in appeal is
and perverse and hi) this extent, the petition has to be
__;i11owed. Hence, I answer Point No.1 partly in afinnative ané
partly in negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed in part The convicf£.iof1' 'of tho
petitioner for the ofiiznco under Section 326g"the
sentence thereon are set aside. The petitio:verV_ i*:.2.Vco.:ivicix=:é"for
the offence under Section 323 IPC L
iaaprisonment for two months. and a 'of
in defauit, to undergo S.i. fo1* o;§é:» mo1.:1th.._V_
sentence for the oii"c11Vc}-3 1A {PC are
ammea. It is submitteé petitioner that
the accused was' for and 14 days. in the
fiefifiozzer 'E55 Voomplcted the sentence and
he is ozxioxfcd to .Vré1oé£se,§fiV._.subject to the deposit of the fine
amount. the to run concurrently.
Salli
Iudéfé
-JL