Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.
B.P. Ranjith — Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka, By West Police Station, Mandya — Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 688 of 2010
Decided on : 18-02-2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. P.M. Siddamallappa for M/s. Mylaimiah, for the Petitioner, for the Appellant.
Mr. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, For the Respondent.
The Court's decision was influenced by the assessment of evidence, corroboration from medical evidence, and absence of enmity or ill-will between the parties.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault - Sections 323, 506, 504, 427, 34 - 397, 401 of Cr. P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for assaulting P.W. 1 at his shop and causing hurt. They appealed the conviction, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. The revision petition was filed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no error of law or jurisdiction in the judgments of the lower Courts. It affirmed the conviction of the petitioners for the specified offences and modified the sentence for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to pay a fine instead of imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was the guilt of the accused for the alleged assault and causing hurt to P.W. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, finding corroboration from medical evidence, and the absence of enmity or ill-will between the parties.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed in part, affirming the conviction and order of sentence for Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and modifying the sentence for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to pay a fine instead of imprisonment.
K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the Respondent-State.
2. Heard Sri P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP, appearing for the Respondent-State.
3. This revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr. P.C. by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 who were Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is directed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 823 and 506 read with 84 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for those offences and convicting Accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 427 of IPC and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the said offences in C.C. No. 1513/2007 dated 29.11.2008 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Mandya, and affirmed in Crl. A. No. 125/2008.
4. The petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 427, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC inter alia on the allegation that on 22.3.2007 at about 9.15 p.m., all the three accused persons went to the shop of P.W. 1-C.R. Jagadeesh situate in Mandya and asked for a pack of cigarette on credit, and since P.W. 1 refused to give cigarette pack on credit. Accused No. 1 abused and insulted P.W. 1 in filthy language, destroyed the telephone coin box which was fixed in front of the shop and also glass bottles kept in the shop and thereafter Accused No. 1 assaulted P.W. 1 causing him serious injuries and at that moment Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were standing outside the shop pulled P.W. 1 outside and all the three accused by sharing common intention, assaulted P.W. 1 and thereby caused hurt to P.W. 1.
5. The petitioners pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5 and also M.Os. 1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication.
6. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate by the judgment dated 29.11.2008 held Accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 406 read with 34 of IPC. In addition, Accused No. 1 was also found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 427 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine as noticed supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence the petitioners filed appeal before the Sessions Court at Manda in Crl. A. No. 125/2008. The appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 8.4.2008 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. It is against these concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the petitioners have presented this petition.
7. This Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The scope of interference in revision under Section 397 of Cr. P.C., is very limited and only if it is shown that there is error of law or jurisdiction, this Court could interfere with the orders of the Courts below.
8. I have carefully read the judgment of the Courts below and I find no error of law or jurisdiction having been committed by the Courts below. The trial Court after referring to the oral evidence of material witnesses recorded finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 clearly establishes the incident, of assault on P.W. 1 by Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The evidence of P.W. 4-Dr. Nagarathnamma, would establish the presence of injury on the person of P.W. 1 and thus the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 gain corroboration from the medical evidence. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the medical evidence,
