Karnataka High Court
Seetharam S/O Late Mudalaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
" .. REP-RES_'EANT'E.D BY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27" DAY OF AUGUST 2O1Ojf.
BEFORE E E' A
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N. ANA_N"D:A A 'A
CRIMINAL APPEAL N'O:231«,'2003' A
CRIMINAL APPEAL No'..B6O/2OOT3C--FIIO I A' - *
CRL.A. No. 23112003
BETWEEN:
SRLSEETHARAM,
S/O.LATE.MUDALAIAH, A
AGE 28 YEARS, '
OCC:K.S.R.T..C_«.DRIvEi?<, I
RESIDING AT 3_\iO.§1i}436,., _ "
VITH CROSS}R.«G§I..vCQLO~NY, '
SRIRAMAPURAIBQ'. " ' '.
BANGAVLOREA¥..56O':Q2_1.---_ APPELLANT
(BY SRIH. RAMACIH'A"NDRA.,_:A<Dv)
AND; ., " V-
TH E ESTATE OF I<'A.RNATAI<A,
. $R.IRAMF"LJARAM , POLICE STATION. ,..RESPONDENT
{_B'i*--._$«Ri'."\AIjfAYA"KUMAR MAJEAGE, HCGP)
C'RL.A"': IS FILED U/S.374 (ii) CR.P.C AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2003 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK
«-_'(sEssIc3~NS) COURT--I BANGALORE CITY IN SC.NO.2O0/2002,
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
'P.PU»NIsHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 333 IPC AND SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 3 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF
A .._P;s.I,OOO/~, INDEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO R.I.
FOR ONE MONTH MORE.
CRL.A.NO.86O 2003
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SRIRAMPURAM POLICE STATION. AP;>EI_LA'NT_'_= '
(BY SRI.vIJAYAI<uMAR MAJAGE, HCGR)-._ A
AND:
SEETHARAMAIAH,
28 YEARS, S/O.LATE DODDAIAH,
U36, 6"' CROSS, *
RG1 COLONY, SRIRAMPLJRAM, '
BANGALORE. _._RESPONDENT
(BY SRIHRAMACHANDRA,-DADv')* 1
CRI_.A_ IvS'FII_'.ED =U/3.377 'CR'. PRAYING TO ENHANCE
THE SENTENCE fDA_TED« 2:3V.011_...2r3O3 PASSED BY THE FAST
TRACK ('SES.S.ION'S_). 4"-RIC-OURT:I'A~--,b BANGALORE CITY IN
Sc.No.2OO/2ocI2;'.;_.'CONVICTING" THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THREE'OFFENC-E"--RONISHAB'L'EVw--uNDER SECTIONS 333 IPC
SENTENCINGHIMV TO u,N'D,ERGO R.I. FOR 3 MONTHS AND TO
PAY A FINE OF Rs..T'1.,C4OOO/1-,.1_INDEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE To
UNDERGQ R._I. FOR-OI'dE"M_ONTH MORE.
»THE$4E .AP'REALS- ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DVEER.-'ERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
' VV.CVl'r'V'!A--;'.;é\...E'\A'iS:O'.'V.;'231/2003 is fiied by the accused to set aside 'I:vlr}e'VjIJdgment of conviction for an offence punishable "us-:1'¢rVSectIon 333 of IPC. CrE.A.NO.860/203 is filed by the
-- to enhance the sentence. g / Q g\I.. J" I 4-»V'"" ~ '
2. I have heard Sri.H Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the appeiiant and Srivijaykumar M-ajage, learned High Court Government Pieaderufor the,,S_taVte:.'..'4.0'wV
3. Brief facts of the caseare as fo'ii'ow's',:. , During the year 2000, PW3 --._'-~~Hanorna'n'th'a"raya'p:0a was working as temporary I3an_,gmari._i'n id, Division, Okaiipuram, Bangai0re..:_ Agbouit' lidasy/is prior to 02.11.2000, the Assiistant Engineer had disconnected the power-connecti_on'"vtothe houses of one Shekar and had not paid the eiectric%ein'erg'y c03nisunsp.t'i0n c_ha'rges. However, even after discon'nect.ioVn,-- tiiey,_hva.di"-reconnected the instaiiations and obstractingv eiectr.icAA'~.en'e'rgy. On 02.11.2000, PW2 «~ N Nagiaraiu vvinstr0cte'd*"PW3 to physicaily check whether the "a,f0'r"esta,ted"'rpersons have reconnected their instaiiations. 0n;"02,._1ii.2;f;0:00 at 5.30 p.m. after receiving the fist of meters_A'1which had been disconnected, PW3 came to R.G. C_0iony in Srirampura. He inspected these instailations. ,_,One consumer by name Shankarappa pleaded that he would pay the electric energy consumption charges on the following day morning. Some other persons pleade:l_» that they would pay the electric energy charggegsjV:VVonV;..t'lae following day. At that time, accused came of PW3 and banged his head against tl*.e,_ persons who had gathered, Vpacifiied his house in an autorickshawv,.i:',:.V:"'Qn thewnextj":day.rm'or:ning,'VV PW3 met PW2 and informed:l'thetjoccur_rence.""' lodged the first informationrili by PW1 --
Dr.Ramesh Hospital at had suffered fracture of both taken confirmed the same.
The completion of investigation sulp,mi'tted the"chargesheet.
the evidence of PW2 and also from the ccnltentsy'ofls_E:§<.P4 it is proved that PW3 was working as temporary Gangman in the office of Assistant Engineer in O & M, 3"' Division, Okalipuram, Bangalore. On (§E2.11.2000, he was on official duty. He had been to N. disconnect the instailations for which eiectric energy consumption charges had not been paid by somefof the consumers in RG Colony at Srirampuram. PW3 has deposed that whenmhe wasv"dv--isjch:a'rging V» duty as public servant in the afo:.r4est:ated the consumers pleaded forstim_e consumption charges. At was not concerned with the by" caught hold of PW3 and banged nose of PW3 which bones of PW3. The first thue"'oVccurrence was lodged by PW2 lion: The report of medical examination of.Pw3'*v_wo'uld reveal fractures of both nasal bon'és.;_'---r.Tiiie X--rays"taken confirmed the same. learned counsel for accused would submit a temporary Gangman, therefore, he was not a public servant within the definition of Section 21 of In order to appreciate his submission, it is necessary to refer Section 21 of IPC reading as here under:--
"21. "Public Servant".-The words "public servant" denote a person faliing any of the descriptions hereinafter follov_v_ing',' nameiy:-
Firsts [Repealed byfthe"}\.daptatio'n._V,o,f":V"h Laws Order, 1950] SECOHU." Every C'orn*missior.ed'"Officer"in the Military, Navai or Ayiir--Fo"rce's-»pof Endiav;.. Third.~ Every person empowere:d.._by "whether by himseif-..,or:as~. _';mzemibejr, Cofwany body of pers sf,i_ 5 dj ufdiilic;-a to ry f on ction s; ._ - officer of a Court of Justice liquidator, receiver or __comrriisvsioner)A'=_whose duty it is, as such officer, to""i«nv__es'tigate or report on any matter o'f:_ia_vv~--..or fact, or to make, authenticate, or uany document, or to take charge or dis.p'os_c-f of any property, or to execute any it ..ju::iiciai process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court, and every person specialiy authorised by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties; Fifth.-- Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant;
Sixth.-- Every arbitrator or other to whom any cause or matter bee'r'r"
referred for decision or reportby a*ny'Co'£;rt"'of_' Justice, or by any other comypetentp'ptibiich if authority;
Seventh.-- Every vvfhoihozldsvvfgany office by virtue;:_"ofr_ which': isflernpowflered to place or keep anyfpersonifin cofn.fi»n,einent;
**** officer'; of the Government :';_wh_oseVoii,;ty:"'it_"i's_,°a_s*such officer, to prevent offences,-._to--j.'A'give.__':information of offences, to ._brin"g~ offen'.der=s to justice, or to protect the he"aith_,__,safety or convenience; .,4vA"~Ni_nth.- Every officer whose duty it is, as vv-so-icvyhfofficer, to take, receive, keep or expend anya-prfoperty on behaif of the Government, or .. to make any survey, assessment or contract on behaif of the Government, or to execute any revenue-process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary 3'\3.
interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document reiating to the pecuniary interests of the Government,' to prevent the infraction of any law protection of the pecuniary interest-jdofv.the'"* is Government;
Tenth.» Every officer.ivVho--se'iduity such officer, to take,'r'e--r;eive,"».keep any property, to eany'-~ or assessment or. fo...A.ievy'i'a'ny{jfat'e-._or ta':-'<"fo'r any secular common' ::of_:any.,Lviiiage, town or distriq--,v'.or to"'rna'ke, or keep any do.cuniie'nt.Vf:o,r the ascekrtaimng of the rights .,vof-'the"'o.eo:pi,e.ofany vi'iia.g.e',i town or district; person who holds any offiice in Vvi.rtue" ofwhich he is empowered to ifprepare,~.._,:pubiish, maintain or revise an :"e:iecto,_rai roii or to conduct an election or part " ' G. 'of, eiection;
' Twelfthn Every person-
(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the av. c;'g<\*~»-£?\'*-vveflrc performance of any public duty by the Government;
(b) in the service or pay of authority, a corporation estal;lished"' by or under a Central, P'rovi--n:cla'l"lor'~,V State Act or :a,' j;Gov'eArnrnent_'" A , company as defin_ed,_in Section 6a1jv:"~,,,., of the Companies .'Ac_t,' vof' 1956)-" if h' l
6. On considleratiron.ofiivprloyliisiorgfiof Section 21 of IPC, I find thatthe public's~eiyan't~.need~,.n'ot be a permanent employee-."' E'-.«.e:r9..V-i~f_V_h'e4.,i;:___a~ppoi_nted_for a temporary period, nevert'i"l'ele'ssi,,'.'he; ,lzvo'.vild._V'bte*--a.... public servant within the definit.i_on 4% undeji-.,,,:'seiczijen '21 IPC. Therefore, this submission, cannot be accepted.
. ~__The learned counsel would submit that there lodging the first information and also e'xami__natio'n of PW3 by PW1 - Dr.Ramesh Kavalgud.
8. As could be seen from the records, first V'7§il'1f0l'l'T1atlOF'l was lodged by PW2 as PW3 ad suffered J ,g;att~eQ",, ;f\3 .
10 injuries while he was discharging his duty as pubiic servant. Admittedly, there was no iiiwiii between..ya-ccused and PW3. There was not even altercation.--i§etw»eyehf. accused and PW3. There was no PA|:0gVOCat'i'O"I'l'" si__de'= . of PW3. Though the independeni;"'witn'ossAes' 'h'a3;e' supported the case of prosecution, ithenircyareiiirroereaysons to suspect the evidence of the bianged his head against nose of'~i5Wy3'é--.ar%i_d;\ca.used._fractures of both nasal bones. '
9. finds corroboration from the eviiéiiiencelof me_di'cai evidence given by PW1. Thereiiore, the has proved that the accused by banging headA"v.ag'aninst nose of PW3 had caused fr5Etu:pes'~i--Qf b'oth""'nasa| bones of PW3 when he was '«;ii_s"ch:a;'r.g:'indgj official duties as Gangman in KPTCL. offence under Section 333 IPC is attracted. 3310. The iearned counsei for the appeiiant reiying hzoniiithe judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in 1995 Crl.L.J .1819 wouid submit that the accused does not bear
-ix;--. C£x.»x...iG'~.-e£,V 11 criminal antecedents. The occurrence was not premeditated. Therefore, accused can be released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. In the aforestated case, the accused had corrauaitted an offence punishable under Section 324 of_.El§C;':a'g~--..the_re._V was some quarrel relating to release of w'ate--r.f_to"'his-land; In the case on hand, PW3 was public servant. PW3 hadV_"'n_ot accused. PW3 had not made':g:ny«,w'»fatt'en~%1;:vljtoliilisconnect the installation of The accused was not in anyway concerned» :r.accused came and caught of PW3 and banged his head against "thew Vno'se'7or'»~ and caused grievous injuries which would" demonstrate the acts of accused were :'ni.g:h PW3 was discharging his duty as public atemporary Gangman. He did not have any verge'aunce.V'agaisnt the accused. He had not done any act "t:3..4_pro{/oke the accused. In the circumstances, the benefit S7-Zulndjer Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be a 1 extended to accused. N I2
11. The State has fiied Cri.A.860/2003 for enhancement of sentence interaiia contending that the Trial Court having found the accused guiity under Section 333 of IPC should not have ta':k._envja.:ienien't view by imposing sentence of im:JriAsor.me--nt fordiaperi-o'd of 3 months as an offence under :Section"V_*v_~A.3'3.3'~ punishable with imprisonrnent--vr.:Lj'pr.to with fine.
12. ThevaccusedIdoesj__no't; bear any criminal anteceden_t.s.§'-.,44 » _:Vch'aVncesVV:"to reform. In the circurnstances, se'nVten'cef'impo'sed on the accused cannot be termed. as--fieeijjj~bite.__s'entence. Therefore, I do not find any_ rneritin the.a'ppeai'fi'ied by the State for enhancement ofi':r.,.'se:r.ten.;e. 'H'I"rr""the resuit, both the appeais are sals Iu<3§é