Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
Basavaraj Channappa Neeralkeri - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka Police Sub-Inspector, Ilkal Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2689 OF 2011
Decided On : 13-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri N.L.Batakurki, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri V.M.Banakar, Addl.S.P.P.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Charge sheet – Injury – Investigation - Facts of case on hand are that accused persons as well are residents village in Taluk they are all known to each other and they are having house and landed properties in said village - It is alleged that on morning at about in front Bus Stand in village complainant and her husband have enquired accused with reference to accused beating– Held, Doctor has also fully supported case and he has stated that X-ray has been taken and he has seen complete cutting bone of top portion of right index finger - Counsel contended that X-ray report has not been produced before Court to support said contention doctor has stated that bone has been cut and index finger has been shortened in fact at time of evidence learned Sessions Judge has also observed amputation of right index finger - Therefore non production of X-ray report will not in any manner be little case of prosecution - Therefore ample evidence is available on record to show that accused has actually bit right index finger consequently there was amputation of portion of right index finger - Therefore accused by using his teeth as weapon caused grievous injury - In my opinion teeth can be used as weapon for purpose of causing grievous injury - Therefore it very well attracts Section of IPC - Though counsel tried to persuade this Court that weapon must be preferable to weapon which can cause death of person it cannot be said that by means of using teeth man cannot commit murder of any person for example if person bites neck of person with his teeth if it causes grievous injury cuts hyoid bone that may be sufficient to cause death of person Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.44/2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.44/ 2010 dated 04.05.2011 and 13.05.2011 respectively on various grounds. The Trial Court in fact convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, further sentenced to undergo four years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo nine months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 355 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.900/-with default sentence of 30 days and also sentenced to undergo five years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-with default sentence for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.900/-with default sentence.
2. The brief facts of the case on hand are that, the accused persons as well as PWs1 to 4 are the residents of Chamlapur village in Hungund Taluk, they are all known to each other and they are having house and landed properties in the said village. It is alleged that, on 25.12.2009 in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. in front of the Bus-Stand in Chamlapur village, the complainant-PW1-Sharanamma and her husband PW2-Doddabasayya have enquired accused Nos.1 and 2 with reference to accused No.1 beating PW3-Santosh. In that context, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have picked up quarrel with PWs.1 to 3 and they have assaulted PW1 i.e. particularly accused No.1 has attempted to throttle the neck of PW2-Doddabasayya and also bit the index finger of PW2 and virtually cut the tip portion of the right index finger of PW2-Doddabasayya.
3. It is also alleged that, accused No.2 has also assaulted with a chappal on the stomach and back of PW1-Sharanamma and also attempted to outrage her modesty in the public place and accused No.1 has also abused PWs1 to 3 with filthy language in order to provoke PWs1 to 3 to break the public peace and as such they have committed the offence under Sections 323, 326, 355, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. On the complaint lodged by PW1 making such allegations, the respondent-police have registered a case in Crime No.211/2009 for the above said offences and after thorough investigation, laid a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. As offence under Section 307 was invoked, the committal Court after securing the presence of the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court after securing the presence of the accused persons framed charges for the above said offences and put the accused persons on trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses PWs1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, P6(a) and 6(b) and during the course of cross-examination, Exs.D1 and D1(a) and D1(b) were also marked. Material Object one chappal was also marked. Accused No.3 also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not choose to lead to any oral or documentary evidence on their side. Therefore, after hearing both the sides and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused persons as noted supra.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and erroneously convicted the accused persons for the above said offences. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration that it is a flimsy quarrel between the same villagers for flimsy reason, there was no preparation, premeditation or intention on the part of the accused persons to do any harm to the PW
