Karnataka High Court
Sri. B.C. Udayakumar vs State Of Madikeri Rural Police on 20 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:33465
CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 509 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.C. UDAYAKUMAR,
SON OF LATE B.A. CHENGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
MARAGODU VILLAGE,
MADIKERI VILLAGE,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF MADIKERI RURAL POLICE,
MADIKERI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH
VINUTHA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
KARNATAKA 03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
KOPDAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.A.NO.8/2016 THEREBY
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.12.2015
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI IN
C.C.NO.366/2014 WHERE BY THE PETR. WAS CONVICTED FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 341, 325 OF IPC AND ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:33465
CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017
ORAL ORDER
In this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.08/2016, wherein the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC (for short 'the trial Court') at Madikeri in C.C.No.366/2014 dated 29.12.2015.
2. Parties are referred to as per ranking before the trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
On 27.11.2013 at 4:30 p.m. near Public Bus Stand at Hosakeri village, there was an altercation between the accused and PW.1-Sri Devayya for the reason that, PW.1 had made some allegation against the accused in Kodagu channel regarding the Government Welfare Schemes. On such ill-will, the accused stopped the vehicle of PW.1 and threatened him with abusive words by foisting life threat to him and punched -3- NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 on his face. Due to which, PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries. Subsequently, he lodged the complaint against the accused before the respondent-Police on 28.11.2013 at about 12:15 a.m., the same was registered in Crime No.239/2013 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, the injured was treated in the Government Hospital as inpatient. The respondent-Police after conducting investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 325 of IPC before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. In order to prove the charges before the trial court, the prosecution in total examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 so also got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. However, the accused also examined 2 witnesses on his behalf as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked 1 document as Ex.D1. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., however, the accused denied the evidence.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017
5. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, however, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused approached the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge Kodagu, Madikeri in Crl.No.08/2016. After re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017
7. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S Arbatti for the petitioner so also Sri M.R. Patil, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that that both the courts below have erred while passing the impugned judgments by convicting the accused for the charges leveled against him without proper appreciation of evidence on record. According to learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay of more than 6 hours in lodging the complaint and there is inconsistency in respect of recording MLC (Medico-Legal Case) statement by PW.5 in the Hospital. The eyewitness to the incident i.e., PW.1 has stated that he was not able to identify the vehicle of the accused at the time of incident, as such his presence in the scene of occurrence is doubtful. He would further contend that, the evidence of injured eyewitness PW.1 is quite contrary to the injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate as per Ex.P8. Though PW.1 has deposed that he had sustained fracture on his nose due to the blow given by the accused, however he had not undergone any surgery. Further, PW.4-Doctor categorically admitted in his cross examination that there is a possibility of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 sustaining injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate, if a person fell on a stone. Further, the Computed Tomography Scan report was not produced along with the charge sheet by the Investigation Officer and the same was produced by the Doctor during the course of investigation, which cannot be relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Hence, the oral testimony of PW.1 is contrary to the medical evidence of PW.4. The learned counsel would vehemence his submission by contending that it is highly improbable to believe that the accused had landed a blow on the face of PW.1 while he was driving the vehicle and due to the same PW.1 had sustained grievous injuries. The accused and PW.1 were not in a good terms due to the political rivalry, as such a false case has been foisted against the accused. Further, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 nullify the evidence of PW.1, since they both categorically deposed that PW.1 himself illegally restrained the accused and assaulted him and due to the same he sustained injuries and the accused had lodged a complaint against PW.1 which was registered in Crime No.240/2013 dated 28.11.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. Such being the situation, the Courts below failed to consider that who is the actual aggressor and convicted the accused -7- NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 without properly appreciating the evidence on record. Alternatively, the learned counsel submits that even if the incident in question is admitted for the sake of argument, then also the same was caused in a grave and sudden provocation without any such intention or knowledge of the accused. In such circumstance, the offence squarely falls within the ambit of Section 335 of IPC instead of Section 325 of IPC.
9. Per contra, learned HCGP would submits that both the Courts below after meticulously considering the evidence on record, rightly passed well reasoned judgments which do not call for any interference by this Court. He would further contend that the evidence of PW.1 the injured and also PW.2 the eyewitness to the incident corroborates each other and they both categorically deposed before the Court that the accused intentionally caused injuries to PW.1 by hitting him on his face. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 further corroborates to the evidence of PW.4-Doctor and the Wound Certificate-Ex.P8. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PWs.1 and 2 and the evidence of PW.7-Investigation Officer. By considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused -8- NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties so also having given my anxious consideration on the documents made available before me including the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the only point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the judgments passed by the trial Court so also the First Appellate Court requires interference by this Court?"
11. As could be seen from the record, in order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in total examined 8 witnesses before the trial Court and among them PW.1 is the injured eyewitness and PW.2 is the eyewitness to the incident. On Perusal of their evidence, PW.1 categorically deposed before the Court that, on the relevant date and time, when he was coming out from his farm house at Hosakeri, the accused stopped his vehicle and quarreled with him and punched him on his face. Thereafter, he admitted to the Government Hospital at Madikeri and took treatment for a period of 8 days. The said evidence of PW.1 corroborates to the evidence of PW.2 who -9- NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 also deposed in a similar manner. On perusal of the Wound Certificate-Ex.P8, the same depicts that the accused had sustained nasal bone fracture and the said injuries are grievous in nature. Though PWs.1 and 2 are cross examined at length, nothing worthwhile has elicited from them to disbelieve their version. The evidence of Investigation Officers-PWs.7 and 8 also corroborates to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. In such circumstance, the incident in question and the involvement of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. As far as the alternative contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, on careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, including the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 in respect of the incident in question, the accused also lodged a complaint against PW.1 which registered in Crime No.240/2013 dated 28.11.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. Further, a charge sheet has also been filed in the said case. DWs.1 and 2 have deposed that PW.1 being the aggressor assaulted the accused and caused injuries. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the same depicts that the incident in question was caused in a spur of moment on a grave and sudden provocation. The
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 accused did not used any weapon to cause injuries to PW.1. In such circumstance, as contemplate under Section 325 of IPC, this case comes under the Exception provided under Section 335 of IPC, which reads as under:
"335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation.-Whoever 1* [voluntarily] causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both."
13. On careful perusal of provision of Sections 325 and 335 of IPC, the act committed by the accused falls within the ambit of Section 335 of IPC, since the accused had no such intention or motive to cause injuries to PW.1. The entire incident caused without any premeditation. Hence, in my considered view the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 335 of IPC instead of Section 325 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the order of sentence imposed by the trial Court which was upheld by the First Appellate Court is liable to be modified.
14. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
ii. The Judgment of conviction dated
29.12.2015 passed by the Court of
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Madikeri-
Kodagu in C.C.No.366/2014 which was
confirmed by the Court of I
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kodagu, Madikeri in Crl.A.No.08/2016 dated 03.04.2017 is modified.
iii. The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC instead of Section 325 of IPC. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.366/2014 which was confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri is set-aside.
iv. However, the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC is kept intact.
v. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:33465 CRL.RP No. 509 of 2017 vi. Acting under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the accused is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.58,000/- to PW.1 within 8 weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
vii. Upon such deposit of the fine amount and compensation amount, the learned Magistrate is requested to intimate the same to PW.1 and release the same to PW.1 on proper identification.
viii. In case of failure to deposit the fine amount, the learned Magistrate is requested to secure the presence of the accused to undergo the default sentence.
ix. If the accused failed to deposit the compensation amount, PW.1 is at liberty to recover the same as per law.
x. The fine amount if any deposited, the same
shall be included in the compensation
amount.
xi. The bail bond, if any, executed by the
petitioner shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23