Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anil B. Katti, J.
Tammanna – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 100239 of 2015
Decided On : 15-06-2023
V.S.Gaddad, Advocate, Praveen Uppar, Advocate
The judgment clarifies the requirements for establishing a conviction under Section 504 of the IPC, highlighting the necessity of proving intentional insult and provocation to breach public peace, while affirming the applicability of Sections 332 and 353 in cases of assault against public servants.
Headnote:
REVISION - ASSAULT ON PUBLIC SERVANT - Sections 332, 353, 504 of IPC - The court discussed Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC, which pertain to voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from discharging his duty and assaulting a public servant, respectively. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that the accused's actions constituted a clear deterrence to the complainant's lawful duties. However, the court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 504, which requires intentional insult with provocation to breach public peace, leading to the acquittal of the accused on that charge.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a bus driver, was assaulted by the accused while he was discharging his duties, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC. The trial court convicted one accused and acquitted the other, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness accounts and medical reports, sufficiently established that the accused deterred the complainant from performing his duties as a public servant. However, the evidence for the charge under Section 504 was deemed inadequate.
Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted offences under Sections 332, 353, and 504 of the IPC, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 504, there must be clear evidence of intentional insult that provokes a breach of public peace, which was not established in this case. Conversely, the actions of the accused were found to meet the criteria for Sections 332 and 353, justifying the conviction for those offences.
Final Decision: The court modified the sentence for the accused, imposing fines for the offences under Sections 332 and 353, while acquitting him of the charge under Section 504.
JUDGMENT
1. Revision petitioner/accused No.1 feeling aggrieved by judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.A.No.4/2010, dtd. 31/10/2013, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 17/4/2007 at 1.00 p.m. complainant was driving bus bearing No.KA-25/F-1957 and stopped the said vehicle by Thippaikoppa cross for alighting passengers. At that time, accused came driving his tractor and stopped across the bus. The complainant asked the accused to take side of tractor, so that he can pass. However, accused No.1 assaulted on his neck and chest and accused No.2 fisted on his shoulder, thereby both the accused have voluntarily deterred the complainant being public servant from lawful discharged of his duties. On these allegations made in the complaint, investigation was carried out and investigating officer filed charge sheet.
4. In response to summons, accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel. The trial Court on being prima facie satisfied framed charges for the offences alleged against them. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove the allegations made against accused relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 8 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 5, so also got identified M.O.1 and 2.
5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against them and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record, convicted the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Ss. 332, 353 and 504 of I.P.C. and acquitted accused No.2 from the charges levelled against him.
6. Revision petitioner/accused No.1 challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.4/2010. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence on record by judgment dtd. 31/10/2013, dismissed the appeal and confirmed judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court.
7. Revision petitioner/accused No.1 challenged concurrent finding of both courts below contending that the approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the Courts below are contrary to law and evidence on record. The defence of the accused has not been appreciated with reference to evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5 and 6 and their admission in the cross examination. The evidence of PW.7 Doctor who has treated injured complainant and issued wound certificate Ex.P.4 is not substantiated by the evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5 and 6. The courts below on misreading the evidence on record, erroneously recorded the finding holding that accused No.1 is guilty of the offences alleged against him. Therefore, prayed for allowing revision petition and to set aside the judgment of courts below. Consequently, to acquit the accused No.1 from the charges levelled against him.
8. In response to notice, learned High Court Government Pleader has appeared for respondent/State.
9. Heard the arguments of both sides.
10. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it would go to show that the incident in question took place on 17/4/2007 at about 1.00 p.m. in Thippaikoppa cross. The complainant driver of bus bearing No.KA-25/F-1957 stopped the vehicle at the cross for alighting the passengers. At that time, accused No.1, who came by his tractor asked the complainant to take bus side, further complainant asked the accused No.1 to wait for some time, since passengers alighting from the bus. However, both accused started abusing the complainant in filthy language. Accused No.1 dragged the complainant from the bus and assaulted on
