THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2018 ON THE FILE OF V ADDTIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, IN CRL.A.NO.185/2018 AND ALSO C.C.NO.704/2014 DATED 07.08.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUDU BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of 30 days. In respect of Section 332 of IPC, imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, 2 months additional sentence. In respect of Section 353 of IPC, imprisonment for a period of 3 months with fine of Rs.3,000/- and default sentence for 1 month. In respect of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of 2 months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Criminal Appeal No.185/2018 and the Appellate Court having re-appreciated the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The same is challenged before this Court by filing the revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to take note of the factual aspect of the case that the revision petitioner went to the office of BESCOM and questioned the cutting of the branches of the tree of his land without giving any notice and there was no any intention to commit the offence and when there was no any intention, the invoking of Sections 332 and 353 of IPC does not arise. The learned counsel also would submit that P.W.2 has also admitted in the course of cross-examination that the panchanama was signed in the hospital and it is also admitted that along with him, P.W.4 had also signed and hence, panchanama is not proved and mahazar was not conducted as required under the law. The learned counsel would contend that the police have created the document of Ex.P.2. Similarly, P.W.7 who is a witness to the mahazar Ex.P.2, has not identified the signature, but expressed ignorance about signing of the mahazar and the timing and the date of incident is not proved and both the Courts have wrongly appreciated the evidence as there is no proof to establish any oblique motive on the part of the revision petitioner. Without informing the revision petitioner or his family members with regard to removing of tree branch damaging the coffee plantation resulted in spontaneous reaction on the part of the revision petitioner.

4. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.CHATTAIAH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in (1979) 1 SCC 128, wherein it is held that the charge as laid under Section 332 of IPC and the conviction of the appellant on that count, cannot be sustained. The appellants could, at the most, be held guilty under Section 323 of IPC, the injuries caused being simple.

5. The learned counsel would contend that in the present case, the injuries are simple in nature and there is only a tenderness and in the heat of the moment, an incident was taken place and in order to invoke Section 332 of IPC, there must be a intent to prevent or deter a public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant is an essential ingredient and this incident was not in connection with discharging the public duty and when the complainant went to the plantation and cut and removed the branches of the tree, the same was questioned in the