Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN, J.
Jeevan Pereira - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2010
Decided On : 07-06-2019
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of injuries and the applicability of different sections of the IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault and Criminal Intimidation - Sections 504, 326, 506 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the injuries sustained by the victims, and the lack of evidence against one of the accused. The court also considers the nature of the injuries and the applicability of different sections of the IPC. The court ultimately convicts the appellant for the offences under Sections 504, 324, and 506 of the IPC, and imposes fines as punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting and criminally intimidating the complainant and another individual. The prosecution presented evidence of the assault, including witness testimonies and medical reports. The appellant denied involvement and argued that there were contradictions and lack of independent witnesses supporting the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports, established that the appellant had assaulted the victims and made criminal intimidation. However, the court also noted the lack of evidence against one of the accused, leading to their acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the nature of the injuries sustained, and the applicability of different sections of the IPC to the actions of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injuries and the absence of certain medical reports, ultimately determining that the injuries should be considered as simple in nature, leading to the application of different sections of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, confirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 504, 324, and 506 of the IPC, and imposed fines as punishment. The court also directed the registry to transmit the records to the Trial Court for appropriate action.
JUDGMENT :
K. Natarajan, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant who is accused No.1 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in S.C.No.74/2008 whereby, he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 504 of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, vide judgment dated 15.09.2010.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. Before adverting to the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is worth to mention the brief facts of the case of prosecution, which is as under;
PW.1-Clifford Lobo is the complainant, who filed the complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.1 alleging that, on 26.02.2008, after completion of his business, during night hours, when he was proceeding towards his house, he saw
PW.2-Sibul Vagus standing in the courtyard of her house at 11.00 p.m. Upon seeing her, he stopped his motorcycle in order to talk to her. At that moment, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked-up quarrel with this complainant, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with clubs with an intention to kill the complainant. When PW.2 tried to rescue, they assaulted PW.2 also. Thereafter, the daughters of PW.2 came out the house and raised hue and cry, due to which accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the spot by throwing the clubs. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 were shifted to A.J. Hospital, Mangalore. An MLC intimation was sent to the Police and immediately, the Police visited the hospital, recorded the statement of the complainant as per Ex.P.1 and then registered the case against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.17/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 504, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Later, further statement of PW.1 was also recorded whereby, he implicated other three accused persons and after investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against five accused persons. After committal of the case, the Trial Court framed charges against all the five accused persons for the aforesaid offence and the accused were put on trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, in all examined 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked 18 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18 and material objects as per MOs.1 to 3. During the cross5 examination, learned counsel for the accused got marked Exs.D.1 to D.6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered into any defence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 of the charges leveled against them and also acquitted accused No.1 of the charges leveled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 307/109 read with Section 34 of IPC, but convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 504, 326, 506 of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below, accused No.1 is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused No.1 was not at all involved in the offence. Though the complaint and the statement of witnesses stated that two accused were involved in the offence and both of them assaulted the injured and on the strength of the said evidence, the Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5, there is no appeal filed by the prosecution against the acquittal. There is lot of contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 and the complaint in respect of the assault on PW.1. There is material contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of seizure of
