Karnataka High Court
Rangappa S/O. Venkappa Pujar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2023
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100010 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. RANGAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TIRUMALADEVARAKOPPA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581208.
2. SOMARADDI S/O. VENKAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TIRUMALADEVARAKOPPA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally
3. CHANDRAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA PUJAR
signed by J
MAMATHA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
J
MAMATHA Date:
2023.06.21
R/O. TIRUMALADEVARAKOPPA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
12:26:24
+0530 DIST: HAVERI.
4. RANGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA KADLIGONDI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TIRUMALADEVARAKOPPA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. RANGAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TIRUMALADEVARAKOPPA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SAJID GOODWALA FOR MOHANKUMAR M., ADV.,
FOR P2 TO P5 AND P1 IS ABATED)
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RPTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30/07/2013
PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT: RANEBENNUR) IN
CRL.A.NO.70/2010 IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
08/11/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
& I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN C.C. NO.146/2007 MAY
KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/
PETITIONERS FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,149,326,504 &
506 OF IPC R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC LEVELLED AGAINST
THEM.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014
ORDER
Revision petitioners/accused feeling aggrieved by order passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri Sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.A.No.70/2010, dated 30.7.2013, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that complainant and accused are resident of same village and there was a dispute with regard to the house property. Accused Nos.3, 9 and 10 have instigated the accused No.1 to vacate complainant from house. On 23.12.2006 at around 9.00 a.m. all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons like club and stone picked up quarrel with complainant, further abused the complainant and his family members in filthy language, so as to provoke them to commit breach of public peace. Accused No.10 assaulted Koshalya, Anasuyamma and Dharmaraddi with stick and injured them. Accused No.2 committed illegal trespass into the -4- CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014 house of complainant and pushed Shivamma. Thereafter, assaulted her with stone. The said group of persons also assaulted on CWs.6 and 9 with club and administered threat to takeaway the life of complainant and his family members. On these allegations made in complaint, investigating officer carried out investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 143, 147, 504, 326, 354, 448 and 506 R/w. Section 149 of I.P.C. only against accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 10. Accused Nos. 4 to 8 are dropped from the charge sheet for want of sufficient evidence against them. 4. In response to summons, accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 10 appeared through their counsel. The trial Court on being prima facie satisfied, framed charges against all the accused for the aforesaid offences alleged against them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 7, so also got identified M.Os.1 and 2.
5. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused have denied all the incriminating material evidence -5- CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014 appearing against them and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 326, 504 and 506 R/w. Section 149 of I.P.C. and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.
6. Accused Nos.1 to 3, 9 and 10 have challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court before the First Appellate Court on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.A.No.70/2010. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciation of evidence on record by judgment dated 30.7.2013 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
7. Revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 9 and 10 challenging concurrent finding of both courts below contended that oral evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 and that of eye witnesses PWs.1, 3, 4 and 11 contradict with each other version and the said evidence is not supported by medical evidence of PWs.9 and 10 with reference to wound certificate Exs.P.3 to 6. Both the courts below have committed serious error in believing the evidence of interested witnesses in view -6- CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014 of the admitted dispute between the complainant and accused over property issue. The material admission given in the cross examination by the injured witnesses, eye witnesses and also contradictions in their evidence have been conveniently ignored by both courts below and hence, recorded improper reason in holding the accused guilt for the offences alleged against them. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both courts below are contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing revision petition and to set aside the judgments of both courts below. Consequently to acquit all the accused from the charges leveled against them.
8. In response to notice, learned HCGP appeared for respondent-State.
9. Heard the arguments of both sides.
10. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it would go to show that the incident in question took place in front of the house of complainant on 23.12.2006 at 9.00 p.m. The accused have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons like club and stone to evict the complainant -7- CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014 from the house picked up quarrel with complainant. They started abusing the complainant in filthy language and assaulted PWs.5 to 8 with club and stone, thereby caused injuries to them. It is further alleged that they have administered threat to take away the life of complainant and his family members. The prosecution to prove the said allegations, mainly relied on the evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 and eye witnesses PWs.1, 3, 4 and 11. The said evidence is sought to be corroborated by medical evidence of PWs.9 and 10 with wound certificates Exs.P.3 to 6 and that of investigating officer PW.12.
11. PW.1 is the complainant and he has deposed to the effect that on 23.12.2006 at about 9.00 a.m. while he was in the house, all the accused to evict him from the house, picked up quarrel and asked him either to pay money or to vacate the house. The accused No.1 by means of stone and club assaulted PWs. 6 and 7 Anasuyamma and Dharmaraddi. Accused No.2 by means of club assaulted on PW.8-Shivamma on her left ear. Due to which, she sustained injuries. The accused have left the place by administering threat to take away the life of complainant. Thereafter, he has filed complaint Ex.P.1 and identified M.O.1 used by accused for assaulting them. -8- CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014
12. The injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 have also deposed to the effect that all the accused came to the house of PW.1 being armed with club and stone, further demanded PW.1 to vacate the house. PW.5-injured with reference to overt act of accused has deposed that accused No.1 by means of club assaulted on PWs.5 to 7 and accused No.2 by means of stone assaulted on PW.8 Shivamma. PW.6 injured witness has deposed to the effect that accused No.1 by means of club assaulted on PWs.6, 7 and 8. PW.7 deposed to the effect that accused No.2 by means of stone assaulted on PW.8-Shivamma and further somebody assaulted on Koushallayya. Accused No.1 by means of club assaulted on his both legs himself and Shivamma sustained injury and another injured witness PW.8- Shivamma wife of complainant deposed to the effect that accused No.1 by means of club assaulted on both legs of PW.7. Accused Nos. 3 and 5 by means of club assaulted on PW.6 and accused No.2 by means of stone assaulted over her head.
13. Learned counsel for revision petitioners has argued that evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 is not consistent with each other version and overt act of accused in inflicting the injuries to the injured is also not supported by evidence of eye witnesses PW.1, 3, 4 and 11. Therefore, their evidence -9- CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014 cannot be relied and above all, they are all interested witnesses, further in view of admitted property dispute between the complainant and accused their evidence cannot be relied. The mere fact that above referred witnesses are related to each other that itself cannot be a ground to reject their evidence. The only requirement of law is that their evidence has to be appreciated with every care and caution to avoid any false implication of accused in the case.
14. Looking to the evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 and evidence of eye witnesses PWs.1, 3, 4 and 11, it is evident that the presence of accused at the place of incident being armed with club and stone is not disputed. The accused have gone to the house of complainant CW.1 asking him either to pay money or to vacate the house. PW.4 has admitted in her cross examination that there is compromise decree in civil suit. The defence has also tried to elicit the political rivalry in the cross examination, which is denied by all the witnesses. The mere existence of any civil dispute or alleged political rivalry cannot be said as sufficient ground to discard the evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 to falsely implicate the accused in this case. The evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 stand on high footing than any other witness, since they never choose
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014to implicate any other person having inflicted injured on them in the incident. It is true that the evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 are overlapping with each other version in describing overt act of each accused in inflicting the injuries on them by means of club and stone and same is the position with respect to eye witnesses PWs.1, 3, 4 and 11. However, when group of persons assault and caused injuries, the accurate mathematical accuracy of overt act of each accused in inflicting injuries to them cannot be expected. The presence of accused at the place of the incident and PWs.5 to 8 have suffered injuries in the said incident where the accused came in group to evict PW.1 from the house is proved by the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses.
15. The prosecution to prove the injuries found on the injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 relied on the medical evidence of PWs. 9 and 10. PW.9-Dr.Basavaraj Sharanappa Angadi deposed to the effect that he has examined PW.5 on 24.12.2006 at 1.30 p.m and she has suffered two contusion injuries over upper arm and right thigh. The said injuries are opinioned to be simple in nature and accordingly, issued wound certificate Ex.P.3. On the same day, PW.9 examined P.W.6-Anasuyamma
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014and found contusion injury over right knee and the said injury opinioned to simple in nature and accordingly, issued wound certificate Ex.P.4.
16. PW.10-Dr.K.C.Keshavrao deposed to the effect that on 23.12.2006 at 10.20 p.m. he has examined PW.8-Shivamma and found defused swelling present over upper aspect of the neck and also neck measuring 6x4 inches, so also tenderness present over C2-C5. The said injures opinioned to be simple in nature and accordingly, issued wound certificate-Ex.P.5. On the same day, he has examined PW.7-Dharmareddy at 10.20 p.m. and found following injuries as per Ex.P.6:
1) Lacerated wound of 4x 1/2 c.m. over upper 1/3rd of left leg bleeding
2) Abrasion over great toe of right foot.
3) Swelling of right foot The said injuries are opinioned to be grievous in nature.
17. The courts below on the basis of evidence of injured witnesses PWs.5 to 8 and evidence of PW.10 coupled with wound certificate Ex.P.6 held that PW.7-Dharmareddy suffered
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014grievous injury and accordingly, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.
18. Learned counsel for revision petitioner has contended that in the absence of x-ray report and radiologist report, opinion of PW.10 that injuries found in wound certificate Ex.P.6 are grievous in nature cannot be accepted. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State V/s. Shenappa Gowda and others reported in KCCR 2759 (DB), wherein it has been observed and held that it is now well settled that unless the prosecution produces x-ray for confirmation of the fracture opined by doctor on medical examination clinically, it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury of fracture.
19. In the present case also evidence of PW.10 that P.W.7 has suffered grievous injury is recorded in the wound certificate-Ex.P.6 and there is no any evidence to prove the opinion of PW.10 that the said injuries are grievous in nature. The x-ray report or radiologist report has not been produced in this case. Therefore, evidence of P.W.7-injured witness and doctor-PW.10 cannot be relied to hold that PW.7 suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, in view of principles enunciated in
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014the aforesaid judgment, the offence committed by accused falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C.
20. The prosecution also alleged that accused have abused the complainant and his family members in filthy language, so as to cause insult to them, further to provoke them to commit breach of public peace and also administered threat to takeaway the life of complainant and his family members. The mere reference of some abusive words in the complaint and in the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself cannot be said as sufficient evidence to prove legal requirements in terms of Section 504 of I.P.C. In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2014 SC 957, wherein it has been observed and held that "Section 504 of IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz., a) Intentional insult, b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the persons insulted, and c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014
other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 of IPC."
21. In the present case also other than some reference of abusive words in the complaint or in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is no evidence touching to the legal requirements enunciated in the aforesaid judgment of Honb'le Apex Court. The evidence placed on record by prosecution also falls short of criminal intimidation as defined in terms of Section 503 of I.P.C. which can attract penal action in
- 15 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014terms of Section 506 of I.P.C. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. cannot be legally sustained.
22. Now coming to the question of imposition of sentence, the trial Court has imposed sentence of six months for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 R/w. Section 149 of I.P.C., further accused were sentenced S.I. for a term of Six months for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and also fine of Rs.1000/- each. In view of reasons recorded above, it has been observed and held that offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. is not attracted and the same will fall within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C. The said provision empowers the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. Looking to the nature of evidence on record, the order of the trial Court in imposing the simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sections 143 and 147 of I.P.C. is too harsh. Therefore, interference of this Court is required to modify the sentence imposed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. If the accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 10 are sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147 of I.P.C.
- 16 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, further if sentenced of fine amount of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each is ordered for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 10 is hereby partly allowed.
The judgment of the First Appellate Court on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri Sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.A.No.70/2010, dated 30.7.2013, confirming the judgment of the trial Court on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur in C.C.No.146/2007, dated 8.11.2010 is hereby modified as under:
Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 10 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147 of I.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
- 17 -
CRL.RP No. 100010 of 2014Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 10 are sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C.
In exercise of powers under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. the entire fine amount is ordered to be equally paid to injured PWs.5 to 8.
The registry is directed to transmit the records with the copy of this judgment to trial Court.
(Sd/-) JUDGE vb