Karnataka High Court
Jeevan Pereira vs Stae Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2019
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1051 of 2010
BETWEEN:
JEEVAN PEREIRA,
S/O. LATE SEBASTIAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR TANNIRUBAVI,
NEAR KORDABBU TEMPLE,
MANGALORE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION DATED 15/16.09.2010 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALORE IN S.C.No.74/2008-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/
2
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
504, 326, 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.03.2019 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant who is accused No.1 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in S.C.No.74/2008 whereby, he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 504 of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, vide judgment dated 15.09.2010.
3
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. Before adverting to the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is worth to mention the brief facts of the case of prosecution, which is as under;
PW.1-Clifford Lobo is the complainant, who filed the complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.1 alleging that, on 26.02.2008, after completion of his business, during night hours, when he was proceeding towards his house, he saw PW.2-Sibul Vagus standing in the courtyard of her house at 11.00 p.m. Upon seeing her, he stopped his motorcycle in order to talk to her. At that moment, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked-up quarrel with this complainant, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with clubs with an intention to kill the complainant. When PW.2 tried to rescue, they assaulted PW.2 also. Thereafter, the daughters of PW.2 4 came out the house and raised hue and cry, due to which accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the spot by throwing the clubs. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 were shifted to A.J. Hospital, Mangalore. An MLC intimation was sent to the Police and immediately, the Police visited the hospital, recorded the statement of the complainant as per Ex.P.1 and then registered the case against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.17/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 504, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Later, further statement of PW.1 was also recorded whereby, he implicated other three accused persons and after investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against five accused persons. After committal of the case, the Trial Court framed charges against all the five accused persons for the aforesaid offence and the accused were put on trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, in all examined 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked 18 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18 and material objects as per MOs.1 to 3. During the cross- 5 examination, learned counsel for the accused got marked Exs.D.1 to D.6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered into any defence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 of the charges leveled against them and also acquitted accused No.1 of the charges leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 307/109 read with Section 34 of IPC, but convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 504, 326, 506 of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below, accused No.1 is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused No.1 was not at all involved in the offence. Though the complaint and the statement of witnesses 6 stated that two accused were involved in the offence and both of them assaulted the injured and on the strength of the said evidence, the Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5, there is no appeal filed by the prosecution against the acquittal. There is lot of contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and the complaint in respect of the assault on PW.1. There is material contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of seizure of clothe worn by him. PW.1 admits in the cross-examination that there are material objects seized by the Police. The previous enmity between accused No.1 and PW.1 has been elicited as PW1 was involved in some irregularities in the Club and accused No.1 went away from the Club and started opening a New Club and in view of the previous enmity, the accused has been falsely implicated. All the witnesses are interested witnesses especially, PWs.3 to 5 who are the daughters of PW.2. No independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. No neighboring eyewitness have supported the case and also contended that somebody 7 might have assaulted PW.1, but because of the previous enmity, the name of the appellant has been falsely implicated by PW.1. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
5. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per the judgment of this Court, club is not a deadly weapon attracting Section 326 of IPC and at the most, the offence under Section 325 of IPC may attract. Even otherwise the x-ray report not marked, the offence under Section 324 would attract. As per the evidence, Sections 504 and 506 of IPC may be attracted against accused No.2, but not against accused No.1. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that five injuries were sustained by PW.1 and three injuries by PW.2. PWs.1 and 2 were treated in the hospital as inpatient. Immediately after the incident took 8 place, they were shifted to the hospital where the Police recorded the statement of the complainant and registered the case. The complainant himself is the injured and he was not able to narrate the entire facts at the time of treatment. Therefore, he gave further statement subsequent to the complaint. PWs.3 to 5 are the eyewitnesses and daughters of PW.2. They have supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.1 and 2 were the injured witnesses. Their evidence cannot be discarded. Therefore, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that there is no illegality committed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court in the judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the records, it is necessary to have a cursory look at the evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
9
PW.1-Clifford Lobo, who is also an injured and complainant deposed that on 26.02.2008, when he was proceeding to his house, during the night hours at 11.00 p.m., he found PW.2 in the courtyard of her house. Upon seeing her, he stopped his motorcycle and while he was talking with PW.2, the accused came near him and started questioning him as to why he is supporting the Muslim community people and made complaint to the Police. When PW.1 said that he has not made any complaint against the accused, at that time, accused No.1 started assaulting him with a club on his stomach. Again he assaulted him on his head and abused him in filthy language. At that time, accused No.1 also instigated accused No.2 to assault him. By that time, PW.2 intervened and requested the accused not to assault PW.1. At that moment, accused No.1 also assaulted PW.2 on her head with a stick and she fell down. When the children of PW.2 came out, after seeing them, the accused persons ran away by throwing down the clubs near the spot. 10 While going, the accused told that they will not leave him. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 were shifted to the hospital, the Police obtained his statement as per Ex.P.1 and he also identified his blood stained clothe i.e. 'T' Shirt as MO.1 and MOs.2 and 3 are the clubs used by the accused for assaulting them. PW.1 further deposed that he also came to know that accused Nos.3 to 5 were also involved in the offence. He was a social worker therefore, the accused have assaulted him. He further says that he stayed in the hospital for 12 days as in-patient. During the cross- examination, he has admitted that there was a club at Thaneeru Bhavi in the name of 'New Star Friends Club' and accused No.1 has worked as Secretary in the said Club from the year 2007 and accused No.1 lodged complaint against him for mis-management. However, he has admitted that subsequently accused No.1 started a new club. In the further cross-examination, it was elicited that PW.1 was a worker in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at Panambur, Ward No.11, Corporation Election. He was 11 contesting the election. One Santhosh Kumar contested against him. Accused Nos.1 and 2 supported the said Santhosh Kumar in the election, thereby some enmity existed between the accused and PW.1. He further deposed that in the year 2006, there was a quarrel and a case was registered against accused No.2 and one Sadananda and in that case, PW.1 gave evidence. However, he has stated that he is not aware of the complaint lodged by accused No.2 against them. But he has denied the suggestion that because of the aforesaid reason, PW.1 lodged a false complaint against accused. It was also tried to elicit by learned counsel for the accused that thought there is a separate way to reach his house and there is no necessary for PW.1 to go towards the house of PW.2, there was some improvement in the complaint etc, but the remaining part of the evidence were categorically denied by PW.1 and he has clearly stated that while he was talking with PW.2, accused Nos.1 and 2 came on that day, picked up quarrel with him and accused No.1 12 assaulted him with club. The accused No.1 also instigated accused No.2 to assault him, but not stated anything as to whether accused No.2 also assaulted PW.1 with club. Though in the complaint, he has stated that both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted, but in the evidence, he has deposed only against accused No.1 and there is no overt act attributed against accused No.2. Therefore, merely because he has not stated anything against accused No.2 in his evidence, as regards the evidence against accused No.1, the evidence of this witness clearly establishes that the incident has occurred on the said date, time and place. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence as immediately after the incident, PW.1 was taken to the hospital. The incident has occurred at 11.00 p.m. and after the incident, PW.1 was taken to the hospital and a MLC intimation was given to the Police and immediately the Police went to the Hospital, obtained the complaint from PW.1 as per Ex.P.1 at about 1.00 a.m. to 1.45 a.m., and then came to the Police Station and registered a case 13 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued the FIR. It is not the case where unknown persons assaulted PWs.1 and 2 and the case was registered against unknown persons, later these names of the accused persons were implicated either in the charge sheet or in the remand application. But immediately after the incident and while under treatment, the complaint has been lodged by PW.1 and Ex.P.14-Wound Certificate also reveals that he has sustained five injuries, out of which, injuries No.4 and 5 are grievous in nature. Learned counsel also not disputed the injuries sustained by PW.1 but contended that somebody might have assaulted PW.1. That means the injuries sustained by PW.1 was not in dispute. Merely because there was previous enmity between PW.1 and accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of a Club due to some quarrel, a case was registered wherein PW.1 gave evidence and political rivalry itself is not a ground to reject the evidence of PW.1. It is well settled that 'motive' is a double edged weapon and there is every possibility of the 14 accused attacking PW.1 in the night hours when he was found talking with PW.2 is not ruled out. Even otherwise, the evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy, reliable and acceptable as he is an injured. There is no reason for deposing false against accused and PW.1 cannot be said to be the interested witness, who is an injured. However, he has categorically stated that accused No.1, after assaulting him, also instigated accused No.2, but remains silent in his evidence as to whether accused No.2 also assaulted him or not. Except the presence of accused No.2 along with accused No.1, no other overt act is attributed against accused No.2. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is acceptable only against accused No.1.
PW.2-Sibul Vagus, another injured also deposed that on the said date, at 11.00 p.m., when she was in the house, PW.1 came there and she was speaking with him. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 came there, picked up quarrel with PW.1 and assaulted him on his head. Accused No.2 abused him in filthy language. Accused No.1 while 15 assaulting, instigated accused No.2 also to assault, but accused No.2 did not assault. When she tried to rescue PW.1, accused No.1 assaulted her and abused her in filthy language. When her daughters came out of the house, accused No.1 also threw stone towards her daughters, then neighbours also came to the spot after hearing the hue and cry and then the accused ran away from the spot. She further deposed that, she was shifted to the Hospital along with PW.1 and treated as in-patient. She also identifies MOs. 2 and 3 as the clubs and MO.1 as 'T' shirt of PW.1. However, she has stated that she has not seen accused Nos.3 to 5. During the cross-examination, her statement was recorded in the hospital after three days, but she never went to the Police Station. However, in Ex.D.1, which has been marked, she has stated that, after discharge from the hospital, she went to the Police Station and gave the statement. However, she also admitted that prior to the incident, she was walking in the corridor and at that time, PW.1 came. In the cross-examination, which 16 was also marked as Ex.D.3, it reveals that the accused came running in the darkness and assaulted them. However, she has denied the suggestion that she do not know who assaulted herself and PW.1 and somebody might have assaulted and ran away. The evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of PW.1 that on 26.02.2008, at about 11.00 p.m., when PW.1 was talking with PW.2 near her house, this incident took place. Accused No.1 came and picked-up quarrel with PW.1 and assaulted him. Merely because there are some discrepancies in her statement that she gave statement to the Police Station or the Police recorded the statement in the hospital, but the fact remains that she also sustained injuries due to the assault when she tried to rescue PW.1 and both of them were shifted to the hospital by the brother of PW.1 and the same was witnessed by the children of PW.2. Therefore, as stated above, the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 were not disputed by the accused persons except denying the involvement of the 17 accused persons in the crime. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is acceptable for having been assaulted by accused No.1 with club.
PW.3-Jasmine Kuvello, PW.4-Josline Kuvello and PW.5-Joyline Kuvello, the daughters of PW.2 have categorically deposed before the Court that they heard the sound of hue and cry and came out. At that time, accused persons assaulted PW.2 and ran away from the spot. Though there are some contradictions in their evidence in respect of recording the statement, visiting the spot as per Exs.D.4, D.5 and D.6, but there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.3 to 5, who are the natural witnesses and daughters of PW.2 who were present in the house when the incident took place in front of their house when PW.1 was talking with their mother. Therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded as interested witnesses. On the other hand, they are natural witnesses. They also identified the accused and MOs. 1 to 3 in the Court. 18
PW.6-Dr.Geethalaxmi is the in-charge Forensic Scientific Officer who examined MO.1-'T' shirt, MOs.2 and 3-clubs sent by the Police in sealed condition and she has stated that some blood stains were found on MO.1 and that no blood stains on MOs.2 and 3 were seen. She gave report as per Ex.P.4. She also deposed that the blood was sent to the Serology Section and report was obtained as per Ex.P.4 and she has also deposed that the blood stain on the 'T' shirt was human blood. She also identifies MOs.1 to 3 before the Court. The evidence of this witness was not chosen for cross-examination by the counsel for the accused.
PW.7-Madhava is the eyewitness to the seizure panch witness of the clothe and clubs. This witness turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution.
19
PW.8-Baby Mogera is another eyewitness to the seizure of clothe and clubs. He has also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
PW.9-Laduras is the younger brother of PW.1, who has deposed that as on the date of the incident, at about 10.40 p.m., he was in the house and after the incident, he came to the spot where his brother had sustained injuries. When he inquired with PW.1, he told that accused No.1 assaulted him and then he shifted PW.1 to the hospital. He also identified MO.1 as 'T' shirt of PW.1 and he also identified MOs.2 to 3 as the clubs seized by the Police under the panchanama.
PW.10-P.S.Pereira, is the Police Constable who carried the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
PW.11-A.Madhava is the Head Constable who is the carrier of FIR to the Court and there is no dispute in this regard.
20
PW.12-Shivaprakash is the ASI, who received the information from the hospital and went to the hospital, obtained the complaint of PW.1 as per Ex.P.1, came to the Police Station and registered the case. He has identified Ex.P.12-Medical Intimation. Ex.P.11 is the FIR. During the cross-examination, except the admission that PW.2 was drying the clothes in the night, no other evidence has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence.
PW.13-Madhu.T is the ASI, who was deputed to trace the accused and also carried the material to FSL. His evidence is also a formal evidence and not useful having any consequence to the case of the prosecution.
PW.14-Dr.Jayaprakash is the medical witness who has deposed that on 26.02.2008, at 11.50 p.m., PWs.1 and 2 were brought to the hospital. He has examined them and found five injuries on PW.1 and three injuries on PW.2. he has given his opinion that injuries No.4 and 5 found on PW.1 were grievous injuries and injuries on PW.2 are simple in nature. He has given the wound certificate 21 as per Exs.P.14 and P.15 respectively. He has further deposed that later a sealed cover has been sent to him where the Investigating Officer sought his opinion in respect of the weapon. After examining the weapons, he has given his opinion as per Ex.P.16 that MOs.2 and 3 can cause the injuries found on PWs.1 and 2. He also produced the MLC extract before the Court as per Exs.P.17 and 18. During the cross-examination, this witness has stated that after giving first aid, they used to send the injured person to the specialized department and he has not given treatment to PWs.1 and 2 personally and denied the suggestion that he is unfit to give any opinion or certificate. This witness stated that he went near the patient after they were brought to the hospital and denied the suggestion that he gave the opinion only at the instance of the Police.
PW.15-Jayanth M and PW.16-Madhava Rao are the Investigating Officers.
22
8. On overall perusal of the evidence, PWs.1 and 2 both of them were injured. They have categorically stated that on 26.02.2008, at about 11.00 p.m., when PW.2 was in the courtyard of the house collecting dried clothes by walking in the corridor, at that time, PW.1 came in a motor bike and was talking with her. The accused came there and picked up quarrel with PW.1 and questioned him as to why he has supported the Muslim Community people and lodged a complaint against him with the Police and abused him in filthy language and when PW.1 was trying to explain to the accused, accused No.1 assaulted him with club on his head, stomach and caused injuries. Accused No.1 also instigated accused No.2 to assault PW.1, but accused No.2 did not assault him. The evidence of PW.1 clearly corroborates with the evidence of PW.2 where she has also stated that accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 and accused No.1 also instigated accused No.2 to assault PW.1. At that time, PW.2 intervened and requested him not to assault PW.1, but she was also assaulted by accused No.1, 23 but she also says that accused No.2 did not assault her. The evidence of this witness also corroborates with the evidence of PWs.3 to 5, the children of PW.2, that after hearing the sound of a quarrel, they came out of the house and saw the accused assaulting PW.1 and after arrival of neighbours and raising of hue and cry by PWs.3 to 5, the accused ran away. Though there is some discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 in respect of Exs.D.1 to D.6, but the entire evidence cannot be discarded as untrustworthy, since discrepancy is bound to occur due to long lapse of time while giving evidence after the incident. However, these witnesses identified MO.1 'T' Shirt of PW.1 and MOs.2 and 3 are clubs used by the accused.
9. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 goes to show that after the incident, PWs. 1 and 2 have been taken to the hospital with the help of neighbours and PW.9, the brother of PW.1. PW.9 also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.12, the ASI, who received the MLC information, visited the 24 hospital, obtained the statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P.1 and registered the FIR against accused Nos.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.11. He has also given evidence in support of the prosecution case which corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 9. The evidence of PW.14, the Doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2, has given evidence in support of the case and issued Wound Certificates as per Exs.P.14 and P.15 and as per his opinion, PW.1 had sustained 5 injuries and PW.2 sustained 3 injuries. This witness has also given opinion in respect of the weapons MOs.2 and 3 that the clubs could cause the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2. Admittedly, MOs.2 and 3 are the weapons. The injuries are lacerated wound and the said weapon could cause the said injuries. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness merely because he has not treated PWs.1 and 2, but he being the doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2 immediately when they were brought to the hospital, the evidence of this witness also corroborates with the evidence of the injured and 25 eyewitnesses. The evidence of PWs.15 and 16, the Investigating Officers, also corroborates with each other.
10. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 9, 12 and 14, the prosecution has successfully established that it is accused No.1 who picked up quarrel with PW.1 and assaulted him with club on his stomach, head and other parts of the body and caused the injuries. However, the prosecution failed to establish the evidence against accused No.2, who is said to have accompanied accused No.1 on the date of the incident and assaulted PWs.1 and 2. Though accused Nos.3 to 5 were not at all present at the spot, they were charge sheeted by the Police on the further statement of PW.1. But, later, in view of insufficient evidence before the Court, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 from the charges leveled against them. Even there is no evidence before the Court to show that the accused also threatened to do away with the life of PW.1 and attempted on the life of PW.1. Hence, the Trial Court 26 has rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, but there is sufficient evidence on record to show that accused No.1 has abused PW.1 in filthy language while picking up quarrel, assaulted him and while going back, he has threatened to do away with the life of PW.1. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution is able to prove through the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the accused-appellant assaulted PWs.1 and 2 and caused injuries after abusing PW.1 in filthy language and made criminal intimidation.
11. In view of the above findings and holding that the prosecution has proved the incident of assault and causing of injuries to PW.1, now, the alternative argument of learned counsel for the appellant is required to be considered as it is contended that the weapons MOs.2 and 3 are the clubs, which cannot be considered as deadly weapons in order to convict the appellant under Section 326 of IPC and for causing injury, at the most, the offence 27 would attract Section 325 of IPC. It is also argued that the x-ray report has not been produced before the Trial Court and marked in order to prove that the injuries on PW.1 were grievous in nature and in absence of x-ray film or x- ray report, injuries would fall under the category of simple injuries and the offence would fall under Section 324 of IPC. Perusal of Ex.P.14-Wound Certificate of PW.1 shows that PW.1 sustained five injuries, out of which, injuries No.4 and 5 are grievous in nature. It is mentioned that the wound certificate as per CT scan of abdomen and pelvis, there was fracture of 11th rib on the left side and laceration of spleen with 600 ml of blood found in the peritoneal cavity. However, the prosecutor has not chosen to summon the x-ray report or scan report and to elicit from the mouth of the medical witness by marking those documents to confirm as to whether injuries Nos.4 and 5 are grievous in nature.
28
12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of STATE v. SHEENAPPA GOWDA AND OTHERS reported in 2011 (4) KCCR 2759 (DB) has taken a view that in the absence of any x-ray film or report, the injury cannot be considered as grievous in nature and the same to be considered as simple in nature by converting the offence into one under Section 326 of IPC and not under Section 324 of IPC and it has been held as under:
" The accused cannot be convicted for
commission of offence punishable under
Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Code of 1908, in respect of injury sustained by PW4, because the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of grievous injury sustained by PW4 in view of non-production of x-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the doctor in clinical medical examination, thus the accused can be said to have committed offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Code of 1860."
29
13. In view of the dictum of this Court in the case of Sheenappa Gowda (supra), without production or marking the scan report or x-ray films, the injuries No.4 and 5 cannot be considered as grievous in nature. On the other hand, the injuries sustained by PW.1 is required to be considered as simple in nature and thereby the offence would fall under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 326 of IPC. Therefore, to that extent the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court requires to be modified from the offence punishable under Section 326 into Section 324 of IPC along with the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. In view of long pending litigation, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of sentencing for imprisonment, if fine is imposed that will meet the ends of justice.
14. In view of the above observations, I pass the following;
30
i) The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in-
part;
ii) The conviction is hereby confirmed. The appellant is found guilty for the offence under Sections 504, 324 and 506 of IPC;
iii) The appellant is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 504 of IPC;
iv) The appellant is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC; and
v) The appellant is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 506 of IPC;
vi) Out of the fine amount recovered from the appellant, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid 31 to PW.1-injured and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to PW.2-injured, as compensation.
vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Trial Court to take appropriate action.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv