Court affirmed convictions while emphasizing leniency in sentencing due to the non-grievous nature of injuries, balancing justice with fairness.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The appellants being accused Nos.4 to 6, and 11 to 13 in S.C.No.16/2019, on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short ‘Trial Court’), are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022, convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 147, 447, 323, 324, 504, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing them to undergo:

(i) Simple imprisonment for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 144 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days;

(ii) Simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 147 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo S.I for 3 for months;

(iii) Simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month;

(iv) Simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months;

(v) Simple imprisonment for 6 month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under section 427 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month;

(vi) Simple imprisonment for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under section 447 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days;

(vii) Simple imprisonment for 3 month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 504 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and (viii) Simple imprisonment for 6 month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC, in default of payment of fine further they should undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. Heard Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

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

"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

My answer to the above point is ‘partly in the affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

4. The appellants have raised several grounds for impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants at the time of addressing the arguments, confined his argument only to seek leniency in sentencing the accused. The learned counsel has not addressed any argument to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction. However, he contended that PW.3 is the only injured, who sustained one grievous injury, but no x-ray was produced to show that he has suffered fracture. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW.4, Ex.P7 is pertaining to PW.6 and Ex.P8 is pertaining to PW.3. Ex.P9 is the wound certificate pertaining to the injured, who was not examined before the Court. As per these wound certificates, the injured have sustained only simple injuries on the date of the incident that occurred on 11.