SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 21304

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
SRI HARIS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 728/2016



Advocates:
SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP

The court clarified that for a conviction under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, the assault must occur while the officer is discharging official duties, which was not established in this case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 332, 353, and 504 - Conviction for assault on police officer - The accused was initially convicted under Sections 332 and 353 for assaulting a traffic police officer while performing official duties, but the court found insufficient evidence for these charges. The accused was instead convicted under Section 323 for simple assault and Section 504 for intentional insult. (Paras 6 and 7)

(B) Legal Principles - The court established that wrongful restraint must occur during the discharge of official duties for a conviction under Sections 332 and 353, which was not proven in this case. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The accused quarreled with auto drivers, leading to an altercation with the traffic police officer, during which the accused assaulted another officer with a blade. The trial court convicted him, but the appellate court confirmed the conviction. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Sections 332 and 353. The accused was convicted under Section 323 and Section 504, with the sentence limited to the time already served. (Paras 6-7)

Issues: The main issues were whether the accused wrongfully restrained the officer in the discharge of his duties and the appropriateness of the conviction under the relevant sections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the assault did not occur during the discharge of official duties, leading to the acquittal of the more serious charges and a conviction for a lesser offense.

Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed-in-part; the accused acquitted of Sections 332 and 353, convicted under Sections 323 and 504.

ORDER

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:

    ORDER i.
    Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in- part.
    ii.
    The impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madikeri in C.C.No.1149/2012 and the judgment dated 11.05.2016 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Crl.A.No.79/2014 is hereby modified as follows:
    a.
    The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC b.
    The petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period which is already undergone, and to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for each of the offences, in additional to fine amount already deposited by the petitioner/accused.
    c.
    The fine amount to be deposited to be
      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top