Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By vs Harijanara Raghu on 7 January, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1166/2012
BETWEEN:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
NAPOKLU POLICE STATION,
KODAGU DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(By Sri : P.M.NAWAZ, ADDL. SPP FOR THE
APPELLANT)
AND :
1 HARIJANARA RAGHU
S/O BODDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O PARANE VILLAGE
KODAGU DISTRICT 571201
... RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C
BY THE STATE P.P.378(1) & (3) FOR THE STATE
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF DATED 10.07.2012
PASSED BY THE AD-HOC DIST. JUDGE & P.O., F.T.C.,
KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.50/2007 AND
CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED:23.6.07 PASSED BY THE
PRL. C.J., (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MADIKERI IN
2
C.C.NO.454/06 - AQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326
OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has come up in this appeal under section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court, Madikeri in criminal Appeal No. 50/2007 filed by the respondent against the order of Judgment and conviction and order of sentence passed by the J.M.F.C. Madikeri in C.C. No.454/2006.
2. Heard the learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State.
3. The respondent along with his two brothers by name, Harijanara Ganesha and Harijanara Ravi were tried by the JMFC, Madikere in C.C.No.454/2006 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 326, 506(2) read with Section34 IPC., on the ground that accused persons being brothers without any reasons 3 at about 8.30 p.m. on 17.11.2005 assaulted PW2 Nani in front of the shop of one Kochamada Thammaiah situated at Bavali Village in Madikere Taluk and also his mother PW1 Ammanni when she came to rescue her son.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that PW2 had worked for the accused and his wages was not paid. Therefore, PW2 demanded the accused persons to pay wages of Rs.300/-. The accused instead of settling dues of PW2, assaulted him with a sickle and clubs. When PW1 came to rescue PW2, she was also injured. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed against them for the offence punishable under sections 324, 326, 506(2) read with Section 34 IPC.
5. The accused denied the charges leveled against them and they claim to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 9, Exs.P1 to P5. Thereafter the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied the incriminative evidence let in by the 4 prosecution against them. Since no defence evidence was let in, the learned Judge after hearing the parties, formulated the following points for her consideration:
1. ¢: 17.11.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ gÁwæ 8.00 UÀAmÉUÉ £Á¥ÉÆÃPÀÄè ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¨ÁªÀ° UÁæªÀÄzÀ PÉÆZÀªÀÄAqÀ vÀªÀÄäAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ CAUÀrAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ 2£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F »AzÉ ¸ËzÉ PÀrAiÀÄĪÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉƸÀ ¨Á¥ÀÄÛ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¨ÁQ EzÀÝ 300-00 gÀÆ. ªÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è, K£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉý vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ 2£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ vÀ¯AÉ iÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ, JqÀ vÉÆýUÉ PÀrzÀÄ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÉƽ¹zÁÝgÉ JA§ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ J®è ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ «ÄÃj ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉÆÃ?
2. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 2£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀjUÉ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ PÀrzÀÄ PÉÆ®ÄèªÀÅzÁV PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ JA§ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ J®è ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ «ÄÃj ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉÆÃ?
3. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ zÉÆuÉÚUÀ½AzÀ 2£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ±ÀjÃgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉ vÀqAÉ iÀÄ®Ä §AzÀ 1£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀjUÉ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ §®ªÉÆtPÉÊUÉ PÀwÛ¬ÄAzÀ PÀrzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ JA§ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ J®è ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ «ÄÃj ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉÆÃ?5
4. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the learned Magistrate held points-1 to 3 in affirmative. Accordingly, accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 and they were sentenced for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 324. A1 was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 326Cr.P.C. Accordingly he was directed to undergo an imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
8. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC, Madikere, was taken in appeal by all the accused by filing an appeal before the Fast Track Court, Madikere in Criminal Appeal No.50/2007. The learned Fast Track Judge after hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties formulated the following points for his consideration: 6
1) Whether the Appellants/convicts have shown to the satisfaction of this Court that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them in C.C.No.454/2006 on dated 23-06-2007 by the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Madikere is erroneous, not sustainable in law, liable to be set aside?
2) Whether the Appellants/convicts have shown to the satisfaction of this Court that, the interference of this Court in the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is necessary?
3) What Order?
9. After re-appreciating the entire evidence, the learned Fast Track Judge held points-1 and 2 partly in affirmative. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal-in-part setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence to undergo an imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months so far as Accused-1 is concerned under section 326. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed-in-part. 7
10. The present appeal is filed by the State challenging the findings of the Fast Track Court, Madikere, in Criminal Appeal No.50/2007 dt.10th July 2012 so far as it relates to the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against respondent hereunder in acquitting him for the aforesaid offence of Section 326 IPC.
11. The main ground of the Addl. State Public Prosecutor is that the Fast Track Court has committed an error in not considering the medical evidence. According to him, the respondent assaulted PW2 with a sickle which caused a grievous injury measuring 10 x 5 cms. over the head and considering the nature of injury, PW8 Dr. Babu Rajendra Prasad deposed before the court that the nature of injury sustained by PW2 is a grievous injury. Therefore, the Fast Track Judge was not justified in allowing the appeal. According to him, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the Fast Track Court is erroneous and perverse, 8 therefore he requests the court to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
12. We have perused the Judgment of the Fast Track Court. The Fast Track Judge has discussed the evidence thoroughly and he has given the finding considering the definition of 'grievous injury' as defined under section 320 IPC. Section 320 IPC reads as hereunder:
"320. Grievous hurt The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous' -
First - Emasculation Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly-Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth 9 Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. "
13. Admittedly, the nature of injury sustained by PW1 due to assault made by the respondent is only an head injury measuring 10 x 5 cms. on the head. But it has come in the evidence that there is no fracture on the head and it is also not the case of the prosecution that the injury caused on PW2 shall endanger to life and that he has suffered bodily pain for 20 days and he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. PW8 does not speak the pain said to have been suffered by PW2 and it is not the case of PW8 that the injury sustained by PW2 attracts any one of the ingredients enumerated under section 320 IPC. In such circumstances, if the Fast Track Court considering the Medical evidence and the injury caused to PW2, has allowed the appeal-in-part by setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed under section 326, this Court cannot 10 lightly interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of the Fast Track Court.
14. In the result, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak