Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.1033/2012 dated 20.03.2013 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track (Sessions) Court - XVII, Bengaluru City, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Further, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC. Further it was directed that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution collectively examined 12 witnesses, marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7 and identified two material objects.

NC: 2025:KHC:5427

4. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal.

5. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Sri. Rithik.Y.M. for the appellant and the learned HCGP Sri. Rahuk Rai.K for the respondent and perused the material on record.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC without duly appreciating the evidence available on record in right perspective. He contended that the evidence of PW.1-injured suffered from grievous infirmities. The contents of the compliant-Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1 does not corroborate with his evidence and the wounds he sustained as per Ex.P7-wound certificate. Further, the eyewitness-PW.2 is a chance witness to the prosecution and on perusal of his evidence he has admitted that though he had witnessed the incident, he failed to lodge a complaint and NC: 2025:KHC:5427 inform the same to anybody. It appears that this witness appeared out of the blue and thereafter he disappeared into thin air. In such circumstances, his version cannot be relied upon to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the learned Sessions Judge after examining the evidence at length, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 427 of IPC in a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference. He contended that the evidence of PW.1-injured complainant and PW.2-eye witness corroborates with each other and both of them have categorically deposed that the assault was perpetrated by the accused using MO.1 on PW.1. Further, the said evidence also corroborates with the contents of Ex.P7-wound certificate. In such circumstances, there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.1. As such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.