1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.217 OF 2012

BETWEEN :

SRI.DEVARAJ,

S/O SHIDDANGAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

NO.42, 5^TH CROSS, PAPANNA BLOCK,

SRIRAMPURA,

BANGALORE 3 03.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SURESH S.M., ADVOCATE)

AND :

STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE,

BANGALORE.

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PROSECUTOR.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 397(1) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2002 PASSED IN

C.C.NO.16724/1998 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL.C.M.M.,

BANGALORE AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

18.12.09 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.329/02 ON THE FILE

OF THE P.O., FTC 3 VIII, BANGALORE CITY.

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON OR

HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The

convicted

accused

No.1

is

in

Revision

challenging the validity of the order dated 10.06.2002

passed in C.C.No.16724/1998 and confirmed by order

dated 18.12.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.329/2002.

2.

Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal

of the revision petition are as under:

3.

Upon the complaint lodged by the injured -

Panduranga (PW.1), the Srirampura Police registered a

case in Crime No.51/1998 for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4.

After thorough investigation, the Police filed a

charge sheet against two accused persons for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 of IPC.

5.

The presence of the accused was secured

before the Court and charge was framed against accused

3

and the substance of the charge was explained to the

accused in the language known to him. Accused persons

pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6.

In order to bring home guilt of the accused,

prosecution examined five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and

relied on the documentary evidence, which are exhibited

and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6 and one material object as

MO.1.

7.

On conclusion of prosecution of evidence,

learned Magistrate recorded the statement under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused persons denied all

incriminating circumstances found against them and did

not offer any explanation to the incident. Thereafter, the

learned Magistrate heard the argument on both the sides

and after considering the oral and documentary evidence

on record, convicted accused No.1 for

the

offence

punishable under Section 326 of IPC and accused No.2 was

acquitted of all charges.

4

8.

After considering the necessary evidence on

record, the trial Magistrate has formed an opinion that

accused is not entitled for the benefit under the provisions

of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (8the PO Act9 for

short) and sentenced the accused to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence

punishable under Section 326 of IPC and did not order any

fine.

9.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and

order of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before

the

Sessions

Court

which

was

numbered

as

Crl.A.No.329/2002.

10.

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the trial Court records and hearing the arguments

in detail, by order dated 18.12.2009 confirmed the

judgment passed by the trial Court upholding the finding

that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 326 of IPC.

5

11.

Being aggrieved by both the orders, accused

No.1 is before this Court in this revision petition.

12.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri

Suresh S. M., vehemently contended that both the Courts

have erred in law in convicting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

13.

To substantiate his contention, he drew the

attention of this Court that the Doctor who issued Ex.P.6 -

Wound Certificate