PASSED

IN

CRL.A.NO.3/11

DATED:22.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

2

FAST TRACK COURT, RAMANAGARA, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.12.2010 PASSED BY

THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA IN

C.C.NO.985/03 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF THE CHARGE

FRAMED AGAINST THEM.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the order

passed in Crl.A.No.3/11 dated 22.09.2012 on the file of the

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Ramanagara and set aside

the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.12.2010

passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,

Kanakapura in C.C.No.985/03 and acquit the petitioners of the

charges framed against them.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court is that on 18.08.2003 at about 8.30 p.m.,

in furtherance of common intention, the accused persons picked

up quarrel with C.Ws.1 to 3 and assaulted the injured C.W.1-

Lingegowda by means of club and sickle causing injuries to his

3

left hand, left shoulder. When C.W.2-Kempegowda came to

pacify, the accused No.1 assaulted him by means by club

causing injuries on his left hand, right leg and so also assaulted

C.W.3-Anand by means of club causing injuries on his chest,

right shoulder and also caused life threat. Hence, case is

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,

326 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4.

The prosecution, in order to prove the case,

examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1

to P6(a) and M.Os.1 and 2 were also marked i.e., sickle as well

as a piece of stone. The petitioners have not led any evidence

before the Trial Court.

5.

The

Trial

Court,

considering

both

oral

and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused

for all the offences and imposed fine in respect of all the offences

except the offence under Section 326 in respect of accused No.2.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and

sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.3/2011. The Appellate

Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, dismissed the appeal.

Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

4

6.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that, there were a case and counter case and

against the counter part also, a case is registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323,

324 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and in that case, the

Trial Court, though comes to the conclusion that an incident has

taken place, imposed only fine. The same has been challenged

before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also

confirmed the same. But, the Appellate Court, while considering

the present case, dismissed the appeal.

7.

The counsel would submit that the relationship

between the parties is that they are brothers, father and

cousins. The counsel would also submit that, in order to invoke

Section 326 of IPC, there were no fractures and the question of

invoking Section 326 of IPC does not arise. The counsel also

brought to the notice of this Court the injuries sustained by one

of the injured and on perusal of Ex.P3-Wound Certificate, it is

seen that the injuries sustained are simple in nature and only

injury Nos.1 to 4 are grievous in nature i.e., in-sized wound over

left index finger and joint bones and tendons exposed. Though it

5

is termed as grievous in nature, the same does not attract the

offence under Section 326 of IPC. The counsel also brought to

the notice of this Court that, P.W.1 in his evidence has not

stated that the first petitioner, who is accused No.1 inflicted

injury with sickle, but, he only says that, when his grand-son

and his mother were abusing, at that time, the first petitioner

inflicted in