Conviction under Section 504, 353, and 332 IPC upheld, with modifications to sentencing reflecting the merging of offences.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2007/2016 on the file of the learned V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2019, convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 353 and 332 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC; sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC; sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC with default sentences; which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.92/2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) vide judgment dated 20.03.2021.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, PW.1-the injured eye-witness filed the first information with Ashok Nagar Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the aforesaid offences. After registering the FIR, investigation was undertaken and the final report came to be filed. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and registered the case in C.C.No.2007/2016. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against them. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and identified MOs.1 to 3. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be passed. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.92/2019. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, found that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court.

3. Heard Sri Mahantesh H.Desai, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Gopal Krishna B.Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

5. My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the affirmative for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that, PW.1-the injured eyewitness was working as a conductor in NEKSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1374, while PW.2 was the driver. On 07.08.2015 at 9.30 a.m., they were on duty proceeding from Garur (B) village to Super Market. The accused No1 who was traveling in the bus, asked PW.1 to stop near Muktha Theater. PW.1 refused to stop the bus stating that there is no designated stop. He gave signal to stop the bus near Jewargi cross. Accused No.1 abused PW.1 being the conductor, PW.2 being the