_. g " IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2910 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RA"H'I'!?}_,.I: CRL.R.P. No.1861/2005 c/w cR:_.R.P..~N:§§";2SS~Z2oc$" «. IN CRL.R,F'= !\E0=1861/2005: BEETWEEN: 1.
Mr. Vemiataswalwwy,
S/o. Thippanna
Aged about S4’yé>;’a’rs.
2. ‘£.’_/irfi :SL;b:_*éirfi”a<.rSé*T._ * __
S/Q.'\/er3i<ata.swg3'my',' "
Aged_Vabom,:t’-_3€._yeafs.
V “S/’0.’T«hi;)par1r1a,
-Ag~e i«.;i’i:Q:Jt 50 years.
Lu
7% h. ‘ U :1 atha,
S’/”0,[Veni<ataswaany,
,. Aged about 27 years,
'/.3..§'l are R/G. Koothandaleallé,
Kolar Taluk,
Ko%ar District. …Petitioners.
W .
w {By Sr:’.A.H. amagéixan & Sri.A.£\J, Radhakrisima, Adva)
ANS:
State of Karnataka by Kolar Rural Police, 1 «. V ;
Koiar. .2:.RE3S'[‘3O:Yfi:’e_{jf’2;;veA
{By Sr:}Ra3a Subramanya 8ha__t, I-§CQ_Pj
This CRL’R.P is ri:ed%VL’e’u.ficeVr Séctjfofi Cr.P.C.
praying to reverse .~a.§1e:f see-‘{“‘e:§i£Je”-{he 0’rtE’er~”passed on
19.5.2004 pa3secJW.__fgy –_t|1e.V’Ac§_d’!;.C.J.P~’l=, Kolar, in
C.CT.l\£o.1657,/D0 and the Or%:’E§3r__«;}’aS»S.e’C!. an 263.153.2005
passed by ‘the EaSt_ ‘Tre3;.fi<' "'.CO'uI.Vr–t'31II, Koiar, in
Crt.A.:yo.28/_:2-:),Q4_\
IN CRL. :;;'r5:_mé7..2;:'=;?_S1'-I2;-Ij'6~6_ '
E3ET\yf\z'E*Ee.,_V: 'ji " _ 'y «
State of Ka r'r;'at«»a_»k'a
Re;3re.$en.tecE by". '
Sazir Ir15.;1e<:tor""0f 'F?{3i!.ce~-
Kolar Rzsfai §')o.3iV;:'e SE;iat'i~~o'm
Kp;{la'r .. _..Petit!o;2er.
«(By éaj.a Subramanya Bbat, HCGP)
A ._ 2
i”;— .-._’Mr; ‘:’\:/€!1§<E3'Cé3SW€'3l'T1y,
V E3/0. Thipganrae
"54 years.
V M r. Szsiiwamani
S/0. Veniwtaswamy,
30 years.
3. Mr. Venmateshagipa,
S/0. Tl”:ip§3anna,
50 years.
4. ME’. Mahjuhatha,
S/o. Veiikataswamy,
27 years,
All are R/’o. KootliaobdlahhalIi,-..inf}
Kasaba Hobli,
l<olarTa%uk.
(By Sri.Bt Anahcl, Adv.)
laws CRLitP is flhfilsuhdehdfiechoh 397 <:nPL;
praying to set aside theordeVr':'»d»ate'd._2.éi(1-0.2005 passed by
the P.O., F~'TC–lfZ1', t
- s.,V”‘t§()’rhi”ri-g oh for hearing this day, the
Cou r_f~ma_(leti_tl’ie’1I£oil_lowi mg: « ‘
“2_§RoER
‘these ‘t\rqe’._reyisioris under Section 397 of Cr.§>.C are
C$’:i_riecte’d agaihistvt.h–e’§udgmeht in Crl./ix No. 28,-“2004 dated
the file of Judge Fast ‘fraek Court«11I at
.Ui<o'lar. No. 1861/2005 is by the Convicted accused,
whe.rea3s CZr|.R.P. No. 255/2066 is by the State against the
same judgment seeking restoration of the order of
Vfcohviction as reeorded by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned Counsel Sri. /I\.H. Bhagwah
for the petitioners in C:l.R.P.18Ei1/’2GG5 arid Sri. Raja.
0%/–»
W1-
Subrarnanya Bhat for the petitioner — Stateiri.
255/2006.
3. The contextuai facts ne._ed”ing refe.’r_ien’ce ar’e§?= V
One Sri. iviuniswainy io:?i.gied a reg5io_rt”eh-I 1§3v;i’9.V;V2GOO at
7.00 A.M. aiieging that thie”‘phetitVio*n_ers in””C”ri.R.P. No.
1852/2005 iacciiseci 1 q..:i ;:i.?ijte,i’tg:§t:i with im on a
tyiviai issue oVf..h;is_- from their area
into the Though initialiy
incident'”cohiii»:i§e’:i€::éfe~d aitercatiori it turned
vioient–._afid 4 atiegediy assauited the
coin;>iainai”i.t V’tifiO’.’Fj!v’3V1 and his brothei”s wife, Sri.
i’*1|,vi’i’I’i”y&3:f_%.[)E1Vv’p\f\1’2;’$.i7.L”N&3J’E3yE3i”i3D{)€i WV3, and Sri Gopaia
aiso aiieged that the accused had used
citibs’ anci.V-“cjch.oi3{)er during the assault and had caused
grie\}o..usa..ihjtiries threatening the life of the victims. The
iifireoort xriias registered in Crime No. 265/2004 initiaiiy for
offences punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of
IPC as also for offences imtier Section 326 of IPC.
During the invesifigatiori, the _investigating officer
§te/
v’1\§v’1
such an in;’i;s’y, He wctaiaici aiso contend thatit}i*<;ii_a;r~–._a"ssa'tiit
is the aiiegation without attritmting any {3'W1 had
8. Keeping in mind the contention.s§V_:’.t4′:’rg’»e,t§..
learned cozmsel on both the sides, I havefev><a'i'i3i'r1ec§.s_the
evidence on record. it aepears',.__ no_'r'clo:ubi:,th.at' th'ef'-i..nc;(:8lfi1lli€d the records and it is noticed from the inedicai
evidence tendered by PW6 Dr. Halesh. The victims had
the following injiiries:
ave
I
K
Sri. Muniswamy Gowda (PW-1)
r,|’lAA
certificate — Ex.P4:
1.
Lacerated wotmcl overv-o’Cci~g.:ta1–‘_45 c;:nJ_ tern;
x Bone Deep Bleeding
. Contusion inter :3Ca.pt.:|ar”avrea 6 :n’~’.1><V:2 céfw '
– Retidish
. Abrasign Left “l”hum’i3—. E/2″‘c”::’v;f–~…><.vv";/in Cm
– Red.
S ri. ML: r_gi:jya prpa ( rid certificate
. i;f¢}t:e;.i.;a,teci ‘\,«jV{j»Wfi.’_:::VOvez’ the ieft parieto
:¢:’ct:’,;..pi_3:;;;1V!_a:.:¢a.._’;; cm x 1 cm x Bone Deep —
2
>._C <»ntu:<_i0'ri_" Right knee, movements
pa"m.ftj|'1bt,:tQossibie.
V Vt’%4i’;..:VGppa§a Krishna (sow-4) – wound
V’c.é.§rtAitficate, Ex. P6:
1′.*”ContuSi0n over the right Chest M Reddish 2
Cm in diameter — Air entry nornnai
Abrasion over left great toe – 3 cm x 2 cm
~ Reddigtw.
. Conmsion Over the left thigh iower 1,53
Redd:sh 5 >4 3 cm.
(}Q»
Therefore the injuries suffered by Narayanappa could be
caused by Object like ciub and chopper and the’froé’CtL’i-rye of
the bone could have been caused by a l’;ii:i_..ii’iErut3:.f:i'(:!. y”ha’rid
object. PW6 the Doctor’s fint§i.e.g.__’so _’reco’i”‘t.!’.’;ev,.rif'”hais figidisicy
favour from the evidenee of
could be salvaged by ti1€’f.;*3_[C’cj..g,i’SeC’iA’t:O:i1EEgE3ft!eA”t._ii€’~wailifgatioiifii
of PW1 that Naray§riap;JaAy__v:vues__as_saui.ted–ioigyyyyfhe accused
with a club and a vci’fi.ci«’r)–;:ie–ry_._ grievous in
nature rig|1t!_y- Va of IPC was
raisiecl E:i.F%1€fAV!’f’f’i..i”‘; view ciear evidence of W=i’1, and the
medical “evide_ncef t;’!’T’i’-,Q’t’J’é’h Dr. Halesh Wiiifi, I find the
fifidving rec-o_rd’e’c§ the “¥”ria| Court was hasec! on the
_ eitiicit}i’ice*~Qn record and it establishecl. Causing of grievous
V Cial’§gE3|’Oi3S object. It attracts the ingreciieritis
“ef ofiergeef defiried imciei Section 325 of IPC and on this
_ _bae;i’s—findiiig has been recorded.
10. Now we shall Consider the charge against the
other accused since Pi/V5.1, 2 and 3 had suffered injuries of
different types; but Sii’T1.;J|€ in nati.ire_, Section 324 of IPC
aw/r
_];-,1-
was raised. The iearned Apeeilate Budge has sub”s–titiJted
its findings to the findings recorded by the V. I
am satisfied that acguittai of the accused ti’ije.:o’iien.c’esV’
under Section 324 of WC was i,i;ncaii’eat_fe&r by.tl*ie_ i§p.i§.ielia.te’ T
Judge when the Trial Coii rt had lcieariv discvi_:isse(i’~ tlo:.4\r’e.c::Vord
a finding of guilt. Howeverfthe.State’*–€i_iVci”i.ni:=t to file
an appeal against.’th.e actfiiittiaji, j’i;i_it has”‘re’sortecl to a
revision under Section :Cr_…l§’ll;’CA;:.vlS~ince provisions of
Section 37:E})(j”:),(V[i£\) ea’rekt’hiej_’~ovn|vif’provisions iiiicier the
Code «;}i’_ Cvli’.iiiifniVn3al -i-?r”ac_eci_L_ire available to the State to
question _the=._laeg–ii:i4ttai’,’«’giving up statutory right and
resorting.’ i.iQ””i*ev’i’sio.’i’i eetition, aarticiiiariy to seek
._”Ce.nvi’l:ition_may be jiistifieri. “iherefore, on the basis of
V -iE’.Ve’clj:iili,cai–i”guestion regarding maintainability of revision
“ie:_iicie’i”Eiectioii 397 of Cr.P.C and in the absence of any
.A _apoe–a:’l under Section 378 {1} and (2), I do not wish to
V”»-disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court as vveii as
the Appeiiate Court Lintier Section 324 of IPC. is is thus
taken out of etonsideration iii these proceedings to give
finality to the said findings.
OIJV
— if»
wife of PW1, we have to hoid that there was oroi/ocattion
from the victims themsetves. The resoitant nosfiiticon is
white P\/V5.1 to 4 have siiffereci the injtiries”–3.ou»a_i”sE;:_:’the
accused and when the acctisecé say there_.v*§awsV ‘pro’v.ocati’o.n
ané even if they had ii”iCi£JiI;]€{f; ‘:n:_att_jac’ig V
weapons, since DFOVOCatiVG’iE.4_WESV”S.l.i[3i)iied1.’i§-V.the §jic”ti:ns~,n
the offence must go out vo?~.._V’Sectioi9:*-.3265′:of2§IPC, Since
provocation has been.”s.i.io;.iVAiie§iVAby._V_th’e–.yictiins, Horovisions of
Section 335 of [PC €A;Q_iV’:T.iE3_S this shati be the
¥’-i§.ji’:vi:t charge._-vforfirthe.uacciisec! in this case. On this basis, I
acce;§’t..V_ the 5 c_oVriiten;tio__n”r”of Sri.A.H. Bhagawan, learned
CQLJ”i’1$€i .3:3»!1eai*’iiig”‘fo’i’ the oetitioners~acc:.ised that the
jxcornes of the mischief frorn Section 326 and
oA’c-oinfineci to offence under Section 335 of WC. 1
“e.iiere’f’ore~”,A modify the order passed by the trial Court
.5 VcLconv.icting the petitioners for offence under Section 326 of
5*-E.P«C and modify the conviction to one under Section 335 of
PC. However, in \!iE3W of the question of maintainataiiity
raised about the revision fiied by the State against the
goth
111?}
acqeittal for offences tinder Section 324 of IPC, the finding
of the Appellate Court is confirmed.
12. Now we shall deal with their
sentence. The trial court has se-in’te–n.ceci’_4 the jac]cis.ise.di~ iiiiiiithlj’
simple imprisonment for a periolclp ltA’hree’-ijfio.ijths”
offence punishable imderV’Seciti_on 3″;36_ oifVAVl’~i?C’~..:£§’ti’t” no fine
was imposed. The,’State———h’a–s”–»..not s’ou.gh~t’E for any
enhancement of the p’i:s.;’nishirnent;/senttence as is permissible
under Specltiionv3V7:7_o1?_C’i<..c.P.C._' The Eeamed Appellate Euclge
while coréfiprininci"«it'tie4"'s_entence of imprisonment llTi§3OS€d
upwi the xpetivtiohers Vlfent one step ahead and directed
AViiiieiiilrriliijtojllipay fine" of Rs.5,000/~ each. This order is
CertAavvi.ri:i'3{.iiEinf~o–i'der without jurisdiction as State was not in
a'p._pea_vl"u.nfder Section 377 of Cr.P.C. However, since we
spare 're-écloing the whole and considering the reasonabie
"..Vv'S*3i.".':f€3l'lC€ that Could be passeci for the offence p'i.inishai3le
–T:i_,ll’iC.l€?i’ Section 335 of IPC, l have to take into consideration
the nature of pi,inishn”:ent prescribed. While under Section
326 ofIPCii1-iprisorimerzt forms part of the sentence, tinder
aw
ugh
Section 335 of WC sentence of imprisonin’e*ntf;i.s”Knots
compulsory. The order regarding punishme.nt_:’eoul.d’ be
sentence of imprisonment as aiso;_vfine..4Lfjv ‘4
13. in the facts and lot cases,
1 choose to apply punishment
prescribed and ho|d:A…t.h:at~. of justice by
iinposing.fin:e accused, would
be of IPC the accused are
sentenced each and also to pay
compensation each. In all Rs.S,OOO/a each
with” default sentence of one month SE. On recovery of
it fine arn._oL.int the same is ordered to be paid over to the
._ “*§§r._i_ctii”ns”..,_
PW.3 Narayanappa who has suffered major
.V:l%’iT}iJrleS shall be paid Rs.10,00{}/~« while the balance of
Rs.10,000/~ shall be shared equally among PWs.1, 2 and
4. This order is passed in exercise of power under Section
3S7(1} of C:rnPXC’
,, ft’) __
E5. The petition filed bythpe acCLJ’se’d.:::’_3.éiiiiowegf in
part. While the petitéon fiiegé tgy
dismissed in terms of the above to-rfdxerj
N'(;*/(;lL1l–~.._ 7-