Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs C M Krishna Reddy on 16 October, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.480 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka,
Upparpet Police,
Bangalore.
...APPELLANT
(By Shri. K.R.Keshavamurthy, State Public Prosecutor -1)
AND:
C.M.Krishna Reddy,
Son of Late Chikkamuniswamy Reddy,
Aged about 76 years,
Residing at No.429/28,
14th Cross, 13th Main,
Lakkasandra Extension,
Bangalore - 560 030.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. R.B.Deshpande, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3)
of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the State Public
2
Prosecutor for the State praying to grant leave to file an appeal
against the judgment dated 1.9.2012 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.526/2011 -
acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable
under Section 325 of IPC and confirm the order dated 8.7.2011
passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore in C.C.No.12896/2009.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
There is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned.
2. The appellant is the State seeking to challenge the acquittal of the respondent. The respondent was accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 506 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for brevity). The Trial Court having acquitted the accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, has proceeded to convict the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. The same having been challenged in appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed the said 3 judgment of conviction. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
3. Though several grounds have been urged in the memorandum of appeal which the learned State Public Prosecutor would vehemently reiterate, it is noticed from the reasoning of the Appellate Court that the several infirmities which the Trial Court had overlooked in arriving at its findings, have been lucidly enunciated. This is to be seen from Paragraph 15 onwards of the Appellate Court's judgment. The court below has proceeded rightly in holding that in order to prove a charge under Section 325 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the following:
a) that the accused caused grievous hurt to any person
b) that such hurt was caused voluntarily
c) that such a case was not provided for by Section 335 IPC In the light of the above ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, the court below has 4 proceeded to examine the findings tendered by the prosecution and other circumstances that were made out from the material on record and has ultimately concluded that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is unnecessary to pinpoint each and every finding of the Trial Court which has been found fault with by the Lower Appellate Court. In any event, the reasoning of the Appellate Court cannot be faulted. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS