Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Narayanaswamy on 22 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.183/2010
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUDIBANGE POLICE STATION. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)
AND:
1. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. MADURAKSHAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. KRISHNAPPA @ KRISHNAIAH
S/O SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA @ KRISHNAIAH
D/O SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
5. RAMANJI
S/O GURUMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
2
6. DAYANANDA REDDY
S/O KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
7. SARAOJAMMA
W/O DAYANANDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
8. MANJULAMMA
W/O ASHWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
9. NAGAMANIYAMMA @ NAGAMANI
W/O RAMANJI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
10. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
11. SREERAMAPPA
S/O BAVANNA
AGRICULTURIST
12. SHANKARAPPA
S/O NARASIMHAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
13. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
14. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
3
15. RAJAPPA
S/O NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
16. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
17. KRISHNAPPA
S/O VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
18. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
S/O SEETHAPPALLI KRSIHNAPPA
19. NARAYANAPPA
S/O KONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
20. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST (SPLIT UP)
21. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O GURUMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
22. NARASIMHAREDDY
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST (SPLIT UP)
23. VENKATAREDDY
S/O NAGAPPA
AGRICULTURIST
24. POTHALAREDDY
S/O NAGAPPA
4
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
25. BYREDDY
S/O SEETHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
26. NAGAPPA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
27. GURUMURTHAPPA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
28. ASHWATHAMMA
W/O BASAVANNAGARI
SREERAMAPPA
29. RATHNAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
30. ANJANAPPA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
31. HANUMANTHAPPA @ HANUMAPPA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
32. GANGARAJU
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
33. NAGAMMA
W/O WIREMAN NAGAPPA
5
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
34. VANAJAMMA
W/O VENKATANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
35. RAMALAKSHMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
36. GOWRAMMA
W/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
37. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O DYANANDAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
38. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O GURUMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
39. MANJUNATHA
S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
40. SATHISHKUMAR
S/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
41. PRABHAKAR
S/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
6
42. VENKATAMMA
W/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
43. BAYAMMA
W/O ADDALAKONDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
44. SHARADAMMA
W/O POTHULAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
45. RAMU @ RAMANATHA
S/O PAPIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
46. BABANNA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST(ABATED)
ALL ARE R/O YALAKARALLAHALLY
GUDIBANDE TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y R SADASHIVA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1, R2, R5 TO R9,
R11 TO R14, R16 & R19 TO R44; R3, R4, R10, R15, R17, R18,
R45 & R46 ARE SERVED)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
r/w SEC. 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 6.7.09 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHICKBALLAPUR IN S.C.NO.102 AND
113/2008 & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
7
ORDER
The State is aggrieved by the order made by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.Nos.102 & 113/2008.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has refused to frame charge for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, by holding that accused had not used dangerous weapons to cause injuries to victims and the injuries suffered by victims are simple in nature.
3. The injured persons were working as Assistant Sub- inspector and Police Constable of Gudibanda Police Station in which Crime No.13/2007 was registered against petitioners and 8 others. The release of CW's.8 and 9 and others in Crime No.13/2007 had led to disturbance of peace and tranquility in Yelakarallahalli Village. The police on learning of the disturbance caused in the village, reached the village and tried to control the situation.
It is alleged that accused no.1 to 46 had attacked the police party with clubs and stones and caused injuries to them. Therefore, final report was filed against accused 8 no.1 to 46 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 353, 504, 114 r/w 149 IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge has held that, injuries suffered by the victims (police officials) were simple in nature. The accused are alleged to have assaulted them with clubs and stones, which are not dangerous weapons.
5. The background of incident and the manner in which the incident had taken place is not sufficient to presume if the acts of accused had resulted in death of victims, the accused would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
6. The learned Sessions Judge by following the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 654 (in the case of Kapur Singh -vs- State of Pepsu) has held that the injuries were not inflicted on vital parts. The intention to commit an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, cannot be inferred.
9
7. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-