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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 203

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. SANDESH, J
THIMMAIAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.356/2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SRI NASIR ALI
For the Respondents: SMT.RASHMI JADHAV

Conviction upheld for grievous assault and trespassing; however, due to circumstances, sentence reduced from three years to one.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 326, 448, and 504 - Conviction for causing grievous hurt, trespass, and insult - Petitioner convicted and sentenced by Trial Court; appeal confirmed by Appellate Court - Conviction upheld, but sentence reduced based on mitigating factors, including the time elapsed since incident and the relationship between parties. (Paras 19, 20, 23)

(B) Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act - Not invoked as the offence involved use of a weapon causing grievous injury and the accused's age and circumstances did not warrant its application. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner allegedly attacked the victim with a sickle out of personal enmity related to a marriage dispute, leading to grievous injuries confirmed by medical evidence. The prosecution's evidence relied on testimonies from the victim and her mother. (Paras 2 - 3)

Findings of Court:
The Court found sufficient evidence of the petitioner's guilt based on witness testimonies and medical reports regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the victim. The sentence was deemed harsh considering the lapse of time and personal relations between the parties. (Paras 15 - 19)

Issues: Whether the conviction was warranted based on the evidence presented; whether the sentence imposed was excessive; applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act was revisited. (Paras 12 - 23)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that despite inconsistencies, the evidence presented was credible, and the injury's nature justified conviction under the IPC. However, considering the petitioner's personal circumstance, the sentence was mitigated to balance justice with rehabilitation. (Paras 19 - 23)

Result: Petition allowed in part; sentence reduced.

Table of Content
1. allegation of grievous assault during a domestic conflict. (Para 2 , 3)
2. discussion of evidentiary standards and prior case references. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. assessment of court's evaluation of witness reliability. (Para 12 , 19)
4. conclusion on reduced sentence and compensation adjustments. (Para 20 , 21)

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court praying this Court to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.12.2011 and sentence dated 15.12.2011 passed in C.C.No.1153/2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.01/2012 by order dated 27.03.2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru and consequently acquit the petitioner for the alleged offences.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. in SC/ST colony of Dambadahalli Village when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were there in the house, the accused tress-passed the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and abused P.W.1 in a filthy language and assaulted her with a chopper on her left hand thumb and left leg knee and caused grievous injuries, which has resulted in fracture of tibia. The motive for committing the assault is that P.W.1 got married to one Dharmesh, who is the brother-in-law of the accused as against the wishes of the accused. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case at the first instance for the offence punishable under Sections 448 , 504 and 324 of IPC . During the course of investigation, came to know that there was a fracture and hence while filing the charge-sheet, instead of Section 324 of invoked Section 326 of . The accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 and documents Exs.P.1 to 7. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are also marked. The Trial Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for all the offences and substantive sentence of three years is imposed for the offence punishable under of and six months for the offence punishable under and 504 of . The Trial Court also ordered to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment, to recover the same as per Section 431 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed in Crl.A.No.01/2012. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, allowed the appeal partly and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had a child by name Sachin aged about 2 years as on the date of the incident and the child used to pass urine sitting in front of his house, which is the backyard portion of P.W.1 house and hence there was frequent quarrel and in view of verbal exchange of words, the incident is said to have occurred. M.O.1 chopper said to be the firewood cutter instrument is admitted by P.W.1 that this kind of chopper used to be in everyone’s house for cutting the firewood. It is emerged in the evidence that there was a ill-will with regard to marriage of P.W.1 with the brother-in-law of the accused and the said marriage was taken place two years back and there was no any frequent quarrel to that effect and it is admitted that she visited her parents house for festival and the motive alleged is totally false. Admittedly, the relationship was strained between the accused and P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they were inimical towards the petitioner. Even though P.W.3 and P.W.4 have turned hostile, who are independent witnesses, both the Courts have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and there is no corroboration. The injur

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