Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V Srishananda, J.
Hanamanth @ Basavaraj, S/o Hanamanth Chavan - Petitioner
Versus
State Through Gurumitkal PS - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 200059 of 2020 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
Decided On : 04-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure - Revision Jurisdiction - The court ruled that a conviction under Section 326 IPC was not substantiated due to lack of corroborative medical evidence, resulting in a reduction of charge to Section 324 IPC (Paras 20, 22).
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for various offences, including grievous bodily harm resulting from a quarrel that occurred on 09.05.2011, resulting in the complainant sustaining significant injuries requiring medical attention.
Findings of Court:
The lack of original radiological evidence led to the conclusion that a conviction under Section 326 IPC was not warranted, meriting a reduction to Section 324 IPC.
Issues: Whether sufficient evidence existed to support grievous injury charges and the standard of proof required for such charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must provide substantive medical documentation to support allegations of grievous injury to sustain a conviction under Section 326 IPC.
Result: Revision Petition allowed in part, conviction under Section 326 IPC set aside, and instead convicted under Section 324 IPC.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. S. B. Sangolagi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, HCGP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and appeals process overview. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding adequacy of evidence. (Para 6 , 14) |
| 3. overview of defense arguments and support for the conviction. (Para 7) |
| 4. importance of injured witness testimony. (Para 8 , 21) |
| 5. emphasis on evidence standards for grievous injury. (Para 15) |
| 6. requirements for proving grievous injury. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. final ruling on conviction and penalty adjustments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER :
V Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri S.B. Sangolagi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. Revision petitioner is the accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C No.360/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yadgiri, for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 326, 323, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced as under:
| Offence punishable under Section | Punishment | Fine | Default Sentence |
| 504 IPC | 06 months simple imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- | 02 months simple imprisonment |
| 323 IPC | 06 months simple imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- | 02 months simple imprisonment |
| 326 IPC | 03 years rigorous imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 01 year simple imprisonment |
| 506 IPC | 06 months simple imprisonment | Rs.1,000/- | 02 months simple imprisonment |
3. Validity of the said order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir, in Criminal Appeal No.2/2016.
4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material evidence on record, by the judgment dated 11th August 2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same accused is before this Court in this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that to substantiate that injured Sharanappa examined as PW-1 sustained grievous injuries, there is no material on record except the wound certificate and therefore recording an order of conviction is incorrect for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sought for allowing the revision petition.
7. Per Contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments.
8. Having heard the parties in detail, this court perused the material on record meticulously.
9 On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that as is enunciated by the prosecution, on 09.05.2011 there was a quarrel and the complainant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gurmitkal.
10. In fact, based on the MLC report over telephone, police visited the Government Hospital, Gurmitkal and on enquiry with the complainant, the complaint came to be registered.
11. Prosecution placed on record evidence of the complainant witness as well as Doctor Who issued the wound certificate vide Ex. P-4.
12. Material object used in the incident are broken water pipe and talwar. Seizure mahazar and spot mahazar are also placed on record which would corroborate the oral testimony of the complainant who is the injured witness.
13 It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that testimony of injured witness is to be kept on higher pedestal while appreciating the material evidence on record. PW-1 having been the injured why would he allow the culprit to escape from clutches of law and falsely implicate the revision petitioner in the incident remains unanswered by the defence.
14. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, revision petitioner has denied all incriminatory materials and did not chose to place any defence evidence on record.
15. Based on these aspects of the matter learned trial Judge recorded an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
16. What is pertinent to note is that except Ex P-4 the oral testimony of the doctor there is no material
