Loading...
Responsive image

The State Of Karnataka vs Shivegowda S/O Singregowda on 14 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shivegowda S/O Singregowda on 14 July, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy
 

 "  _ {BESSIE VT.£{,. A NACQESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14'"; DAY OF JULY 200 C;

PRESENT

THE HoN'S1.E MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAE._f;AQ  'T 

AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No:{'42€». CF 2OQ2_"»v = " K V

BETWEEN:- ' V V' V
THE STATE 0EKARNATAKA;-   
    ' APPELLANT

[BY SR1 G. BHAVAN1 SINGH, Spray

AND:~

SHTv'EG;CwDA, ,  .
/C.' SINC_'REG0WDA? ' '
AGED ASQUT A75 
R/O .__4ANvAN}_)UR VILLAGE,
. _MYS0'R_E TALUK. AND DISTRICT.
* ' ~ RESPONDENT

'_    A.  FILED U/8.378(1) <3: (3) CR.P.C BY THE
'STATE P'{;U:?;L:c PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE PRAYING

THAT TH1S"'HoN'*BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT

A  ;.EA\fE,.T0 FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT

 :.Q§'1'2.20oT PASSED BY THE JMFC., MYSORE IN CC NO.

_ ESQ/97 ACQUTTITNG THE RESPCNDENTS -- ACCUSED FOR
 "  THE OFFENCE U/S. 326 OF IPC.

This CTLA. Coming on for hearing this day,
SREEDHAR RAG, J., delivered the foilowingtw



 

2

JUDGMENT

The facts of the prosecution case disclose that on

22.05.1996 at about 7.30. a.m., R1 and R2 [Al and A2}. with

a common intention. wielding clubs, assaV1.11tC»d:”:.?pW’;l

[complainant]. A2 assaulted on the hands and-.z:x1v V’

on the back of PW.l [CoInplaina1itl.V'”PW.l

cry. PW.2 (cousin brother) came _{~escu§_.gr

accused after assault decamp’e:d”‘–from’ the Voffencefl

PW.1 is taken to the hospital”by”e ‘flt”is”found that

there is a fracture of left .ul’na;. is lodged on

pp PW.l supported the case of the

prosecution; _:Ti’1e.v”WounE:l certificate of PW.1 is marked as

are the Doctors, who treated PW.1

*.iioi;ind certificate, have deposed to the effect

co.rroboratin.gl:the injuries on PW. 1.

z .’3_,A’:”}T’he evidence of PW.1 discloses that the A1 also

assaulted on her back with a club. There is no

M corresponding injury found in the wound certificate in that

regard. The incident took place on 22.6.1996. The FIR is

lodged on 26.5.1996. in View of the delay in lodging FIR, the

trial court has disbelieved the prosecution case and

acquitted the accused. The State is in appeal.

AL, On thorough consideration of the evid__e;’n’ce§ _

that there is some discrepancy with regard. to ..4tl1.evnl.a:.ture _of~..

overt acts of the accused between[‘the:.l5

of PW}. In the FIR it is stated that”A.’i and

with clubs. However in evidenVce.’i’PW.i llstaltesvf that A2 held
her and A1 assaulted urtlier, in evidence,
PW.1 has stated that on’~t1.’1’cf_ha§’1ds and A2 held

her to facilitate a.ss.au§lt.*V”‘:l’he discrepancy with regard to

the oveftllactslilvfstatedisnot of serious nature to discredit the
testimony.’ and incident did not take place.

PW. 1 has ‘oe-en’ treated inirncdiately and FIR is lodged within

a reasonable tirrie’.~—–‘–Fhe reasons stated by the trial court in

V acqulittinggi igheaccused are bad in law. There is no reason to

disljelieve’ltheevidence of PW.l and PW.2 with regard to the

A . V incident;

E. It is stated that A2 is dead. Hence, the appeal

__a.gainst A2 abates.

Q. The provisions of Sec. 320 of IPC define ‘grievous

injury’. The sec. 326 is the penal section prescribing the

sentence imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine or

imprisonment for life. The grievous injuries listed V-in the

provision are of varied types. All types of fractureVi’nj:urics

although technically construed as grievous:jinjuryg”

consequences of all types of fractures”is. not 1_1I1:iAlI?Gl”‘IT1V.’S:i3I’rx’1t”<':

fractures like carpal bones, tarsal lan,Vd*~1;he

bones would get heeled in course–yof%:timVe'"withoutl'

causing any sort of ,.–perman'en:t_:*.di~Sabi1ity'~o.r ..–handicap.
Therefore, to treat such' other types of
grievous injuriesavhiclfiwcaiiifgev_:perrnanent'handicap, in the
matter of and inequitable. In

the prjesenti ofsentencing policy u/ s 326 IPC the
accusedvvho "co"Inmitting grievous injury of the

fi1"stpE*:ind on" technical"consideration wou.ld be deprived of the

V'1;;e";./~,e:fit;_'"of the P,(jl since the maximum sentence being

life.

the present scheme the discretion endowed for

f_” imposing sentence is too wide and vague for the trial courts

to appreciate. The court should prefer the first part of the

sentence i.e., imprisonment up to 10 years where the

grievous injury does not result in permanent handicap or

disability. In a case where iirst part of the sentence attracts

i

Registry to place the case for consideration for imposing the
sentence.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed :_.

GpS* H

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information