The court confirmed the conviction under Section 332 IPC for assaulting a public servant while discharging duties, but set aside the conviction under Section 341 IPC as not tenable.

I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

2. This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.253/2015 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (hereinafter for short referred as ‘appellate Court’) dated 21.08.2017 confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.1078/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada (for short ‘trial Court’) dated 28.10.2015 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 341 , 332, 353 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 08.04.2012 at about 6.40 p.m. at Vitla village of Bantwal Taluk on Vitla – Puttur public road, the complainant being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.19/F-2417 was driving the said bus towards Kasargodu. The said bus stopped at the spot of incident to facilitate passengers to board the bus. When bus started, at that time, the accused came from the opposite direction along with a lady and child tapped the glass of the bus vigorously with his hands. PW-1 questioned the accused as to why he was so vigorously tapping the glass? It might break. The accused boarded the bus and assaulted the complainant and caused hurt to him.

Due to the acts of the accused, it deterred the complainant to discharge his official duty as driver of the KSRTC bus.

PW1 sustained injury and he took treatment for the same.

He lodged a complaint to Vitla Police Station, that was registered in Cr.No.63/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 341 , 332, 353 of IPC.

4. The investigating officer had investigated the case and on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 341 , 332, 353 of IPC.

5. The trial Court took cognizance of the case and secured the presence of the accused. After hearing both the side, the trial Court had framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 341 , 332, 353 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove its case examined PW-1 to 11 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P5 and closed its evidence.

6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by the trial Court. The accused did not offer defense evidence while called upon. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and on appreciating the evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28.10.2015, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 341 , 332, 353 of IPC. The trial Court sentenced the accused as under:

To undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC Sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC.

Sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.

If the accused failed to pay the fine as above, he has to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crl.A.No.253/2015. The appellate Court after re- appreciating the evidence available on record, concurred with the findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2017. The same is challenged in the present revision petition.

8. No arguments were advanced on behalf of revision petitioner. I have heard the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

9. Following questions arises for determination:

“Whether the Court below is justified in convicting the accused for the above offences? and findings of appellate court is erroneous and illegal and interference by this Court is required?

10. In this case, PW-1 is the victim of the incident.

In his evid