Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VENKATESH NAIK T
U.H. Niranjan S/o Halappa – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Smt. Vijaya M.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner/accused No.2 has preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.12.2016 and order on sentence dated 08.02.2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Sitting at Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2014, wherein the First Appellate Court convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is accused No.2 and the respondent is the complainant-State.
4. The case against accused No.1 is split up due to his ill-health and accused No.2 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 326 , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The
The appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient to establish intent for assault.
Point of Law : Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that me....
The application of Section 335 IPC is more appropriate when grievous hurt arises from grave and sudden provocation rather than Section 326 IPC, leading to a modification of conviction and reduction o....
The main legal point established is the reliance on victim testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial witnesses to support the conviction for assault offences, and the court's exercise of revisi....
The court held that insufficient evidence of intent to cause death led to the acquittal of the accused from serious charges while affirming some convictions based on the established facts.
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
The need for conclusive proof of grievous injuries to establish the offence under Section 326 of IPC.
An appellate court may not disturb a trial court's acquittal unless the latter's judgment is unreasonable or perverse, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
