IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.T. Narendra Prasad, T. G. Shivashankare Gowda, JJ.
State of Karnataka Represented By the Police Sub-Inspector, Haliyal Police Station - Appellant
Versus
Mohan Chandrakanth Ghadi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.100177 of 2020
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 341, 324, 326 and 504 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 428 - Quarrel - Intention to assault him - Abused in filthy language - State has challenged Judgment acquitting accused No.1/respondent of offences – Testimony of injured P.W.1 and 3 and also eyewitness P.W.6, their eivdnece is inspiring confidence of this Court - Para 22.
Finding of the Court:
If testimonies of relative witnesses are relible, Court shall not hesitate to accept their versions to arrive at a conclusion to hold that charges have been proved – Court have considered testimony of injured P.W.1 and 3 and also eyewitness P.W.6, their eivdnece is inspiring confidence of Court – Court is of considered opinion that prosecution is able to make out offence against accused for offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC - Extenuating circumstances weigh more than mitigating circumstance and sentence imposed by Trial Court is on higher side, harsh - Age of P.W.3 was also contributed for him to sustain injuries and Court is of opinion that accused deserves leniency in sentence - Therefore sentence imposed by Trial Court has to be modified - Judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal by appellate Court for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 504 of IPC is hereby confirmed - Judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal by appellate Court for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC is hereby set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J.
The State has challenged the Judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.184/2013 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi itinerary at Yellapur (for short, ‘the appellate Court’) acquitting the accused No.1/respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. The case pleaded by the prosecution is that, P.W.3-Yallari Omanna Ghadi is a resident of Khamadolli village of Haliyal Taluka. He has constructed a house in a land jointly owned by him and his brothers. The accused No.1 herein is the grandson of brother of P.W.3. On 18.03.2010 at about 8.30 a.m., the accused No.1 along with accused No.2-Ramchandra dug up a pit for construction of septic tank in the land in possession of P.W.3. He requested the accused not to dig the soak pit. The accused did not oblige, objected, took up a quarrel against him. With a common intention to assault him, accused Nos.1 and 2 have wrongly restrained him, abused him in filthy language and insulted him. Accused No.1 by means of club assaulted on P.W.3 and fractured his left hand. P.W.1-Nakalu Ghadi, the brother of P.W.3 came to his rescue, but against him also by means of that club accused No.1 tried to assault on his head, but no injury was inflicted on his left hand. P.W.6-Smt Mangala Ghadi, P.W.4-Narayan Kammar and P.W.5-Mavalu Dharwadkar have came to rescue of P.W.1 and 2 and pacified the quarrel. Later P.W.1 and 3 were taken to the Government Hospital at Haliyal, where they were taken treatment and thereafter P.W.3 took treatment at Hubballi for the fracture. P.W.1 set the law into motion by filing the written complaint to Haliyal Police in Crime No.50/2010. P.W.7-A.P.Mujawar, the PSI has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. The accused No.1 was arrested and brought before the Court on 22.03.2010, he was remanded to judicial custody, on 09.04.2010 he was released on bail.
4. Learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal (for short, ‘the ‘Trial Court’) on receipt of charge sheet, taken cognizance of the offences, registered the case in Criminal Case No.176/2010. Accused Nos.1 and 2 stood for trial and pleaded not guilty of the charges under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution placed the evidence of P.W.1 to 9 and marked Ex.P.1 to 8 and identified M.O.1. After examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by the Judgment dated 16.12.2013 the Trial court has convicted the accused No.1 and acquitted the accused No.2. The accused No.1 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Further, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and he was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused No.1 has preferred the appeal before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.184/2013. Before the appellate Court, the matter was heard and appellate Court by the impugned Judgment dated 31.08.2019 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction passed by the Trial Court in Criminal Case No.176/2010 dated 16.12.2013 and acquitted the accused No.1 from the charges. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments of Sri V.M.Banakar, the learned Additional S.P.P. and Sri Shivasai M.Patil, learned counse
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram
Kunarpal @ Surajpal and Others vs. State of uttarkhand and Another
Kapildeo Mandal and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Evidence let in by the prosecution has to be assessed carefully and cautiously and it should not be brushed aside. [Para 30]
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable t....
Point of law: There may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has ....
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
Intent to kill under Section 307 IPC necessitates specific evidence; absence of concrete proof results in acquittal for grievous intent while confirming lesser charges.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.