HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
SRI HARIS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 728/2016
Petitioner/accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 , 332 and 504 of IPC is before this Court.
2. Case of the prosecution is that, on 04.05.2012, when C.W.1 was on duty near market, Madikeri at 3.10 pm, the accused was quarreling with other auto drivers, C.W.1 who is the Traffic Police went and pacified them. Again the accused started quarreling with the auto driver, and when C.W.1 went to pacify the quarrel, at that time accused abused him in filthy language and stated that he being a traffic police had no business to interfere.
The accused continued to quarrel, and behaved indecently, and C.W.9 who was also on duty came, and told to take the accused to station, at that time, while he was taking the accused with the help of auto drivers in an auto towards the station, the accused slashed a blade and assaulted with blade on the right wrist of C.W.2 on two occasions causing bleeding injuries.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to P15 and marked material object at M.O.1-blade. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent-State.
5. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 who are witnesses to the alleged incident, turned hostile and nothing was elicited in the cross- examination to prove the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 who is the injured witness supported the case of the prosecution, and nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to dis-believe his statement, and the statement of P.W.1 is corroborated by the wound certificate at Ex.P.12 which indicates that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries due to the assault made by the petitioner/accused.
P.W.6 who was also on duty as traffic Police and witnessed to the incident has supported the case of the prosecution. The statement of injured witness P.W.6 and wound certificate clearly establishes that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries due to the assault made by the accused.
6. Admittedly, P.W.1 was patrolling the area in which the incident had taken place as traffic Police and not to maintain law and order. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner/accused wrongfully restrained P.W.1 from discharging his official duties is without any substance. Therefore, the assault made by the petitioner on P.W.1 was not during the course of discharging his official duties and petitioner cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC , but, however is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC .
7. The petitioner was in judicial custody for five days, and the incident is of the year 2012 and after long passage of time if the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, it would cause miscarriage of justice and as such the order of sentence is confined to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner/accused.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.