CONVICTION OF A1 AND A2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 326,324 AND 341 OF IPC BY IMPOSING ONE

YEAR IMPRISONMENT ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,

MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA WHICH JUDGMENT HAS

ARISEN OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.05.2011 ON THE

FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA

KANNADA IN CRL.MISC.NO.531/2007 BY ALLOWING THIS

CRL.RP.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This

revision

petition

is

filed

challenging

the

concurrent findings of learned JMFC and the Sessions

Court, wherein these petitioners were convicted for the

offences punishable under sections 326, 324 and 341 of

IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for a period of

two years and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable

under section 326 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period

of six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence

punishable under section 324 IPC, simple imprisonment for

a period of one month and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the

offence punishable under section 341 IPC.

- 3 -

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on

21.01.2007

at

about

7.30

a.m.

at

Kollejalu

of

Tannirupantha village, the complainant came in front of

the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and demanded the land

belonging to his mother, at that time, the accused did not

agree to give it. Even on the previous day of the incident,

accused No.2 has requested for the same. Enraged by

that, accused No.1 brought hot oil and threw on the

complainant and accused No.2 caught hold of the

complainant and brought a sickle and they caused injury to

his hand. In this regard, complainant lodged a complaint

before the jurisdictional police as per Ex-P2. On the same

day evening at about 4.45 p.m., injured was examined by

the Doctor. Investigating officer visited the spot and

conducted the spot panchanama, seized M.O.1 sickle used

for the assault, recorded the statement of the witnesses

and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences

stated above.

- 4 -

3. Before the trial court, seven witnesses were

examined as PW-1 to PW-7 and seven documents were

marked as Exs-P1 to P7 and M.O.10-sickle was marked.

After recording the statement of the accused under section

313 Cr.P.C., and hearing the arguments, learned JMFC

convicted the accused for the offences under sections 341,

324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC and imposed the sentence as

stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the accused

preferred an appeal, wherein the learned Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru confirmed

the conviction and order of sentence in respect of offences

under sections 324 and 341 IPC but modified the sentence

for the offence punishable under section 326 IPC for a

period of one year instead of two years and a fine of

Rs.500/- each. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

have filed this revision petition.

4. Heard Sri. O. Shivaram, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri. Rahul Rai. K, learned HCGP for State and

Sri. K. B. Jayalakshmi for respondent No.2/complainant.

- 5 -

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. O.

Shivaram stated that accused No.1 is the sister-in-law and

accused No.2 is the brother of the complainant. Now they

have settled the matter amicably and they are residing

happily. In this regard, the complainant has filed an

affidavit. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to take a

lenient view. The learned counsel for complainant also

submitted both accused Nos.1 and 2 and injured

complainant being close relatives have settled their

differences and are living happily. They intend to close

this case and prays to acquit the accused in view of

harmony in their family.

6. I have perused the affidavit filed by the

complainant/respondent

No.2

which

shows

that the

complainant and the accused have compromised the

disputes and they are residing happily with their family

members and they intend to live happily. Therefore, the

complainant has requested for compounding the offences.

- 6 -

7. T