Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Abdul Rahaman - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2695 of 2012
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Vasant G Holeyannavar, Advocate, Ramesh B Chigari, Advocate
The judgment established the importance of proving intention and the severity of injuries in cases involving assault and attempted murder.
Headnote:
Conviction - Accused No.2 - Sections 341, 307 of IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 307 of IPC. The incident involved wrongful restraint, abuse, and assault with deadly weapons, leading to a trial after 16 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The court considered the lack of intention to commit murder and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimony, the severity of the injuries, and the intention of the accused to cause harm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intention to commit murder and the act towards its commission are essential for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. It also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for medical reports to establish the severity of injuries.
Final Decision: The appellant/accused No.2 was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already in judicial custody and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar,J. - This appeal is filed by the accused No.2 challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track-I, Dharwad in SC No.127/2010 dated 02.06.2012 wherein accused No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 307 of IPC. The appellant-accused No.2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years and shall pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
2. The appellant/accused No.2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 506 and Section 307 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
On 12.11.1996 at 6.30 p.m. PW.4-complainant was going on his TATA Mobile vehicle to his dairy farm along with PW.5, PW.7 and CW.6. Accused Nos.1 to 3 with common intention came in a Maxi Cab bearing No.407 and over took the vehicle of the complainant and stopped their vehicle in front of the complainant's vehicle at Navalur Bridge, P.B.Road, Tadasinakoppa by wrongfully restraining them and thereafter accused Nos.1 to 3 got down from their vehicle and abused the complainant by using filthy language and assaulted the complainant and other with hands and iron rods and accused No.2 assaulted the complainant with iron rod with an intention to commit murder and threatened to do away their life. Thereafter, according to the complainant, they came to the Police Station along with accused and vehicle and gave complaint as per Ex.P.5.
4. Pw.8 is the Investigating Officer who after investigation filed the charge sheet. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW8 and got marked nine documents as EX.P1 to Ex.P9 and M.O.s 1 and 2.
5. The accused were examined under 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments on both the sides, the trial Court framed the points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment and order of sentence. The appellant who is the accused No.2 has challenged his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 307 of IPC on the following grounds.
a. The learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court No.1, Dharwad has committed a serious error in passing the order finding the appellant-accused No.2 as guilty, only on the basis of evidence of highly interested evidence which is contradictory and unreliable and artificial.
b. The prosecution has suppressed the material evidence and has not come with true version of the incident.
c. The Trial Court has committed a serious error in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
d. The Trial Court would have disbelieved the testimony of interested witnesses as there is no corroboration by independent witnesses.
e. The prosecution has not proved that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and the Xray report is not produced and marked and the doctor who has taken X-ray has not been examined.
f. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the injuries are not sufficient to cause the death or endanger to cause death of the injured person.
g. The trial was concluded after 16 years and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are highly interested and the PW.4 is the son of the retired Police Officer and at the time of incident his father was working as CPI at Dharwad and other places.
h. There is no record and case sheet pertaining to PW.4 regarding treatment taken by him for his injury on the nose.
i. The sentence imposed on the appellant is too harsh and dis-appropriate.
With these points the appellant/accused No.2 prays to allow the appeal and set aside his conviction.
6. The learned counsel appearing for appellant
