The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence. The Bench held there were no jurisdictional errors or material defects in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence or findings regarding the assault offense. The revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.593 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Both are r/at Basavapura (V) Thondebhavi Hobli Gauribidanur Taluk Chikkaballapura-561211. ....Petitioners
(By Sri.Nagabhushana Reddy.K., Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka By Manchenahalli Police Gauribidanur Taluk Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560001. ...Respondent
(By Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order
of conviction passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gauribidanur vide its order dated 22.02.2017 in C.C.No.672/2010 by sentencing them to a) undergo simple imprisonment of two months each for the offence p/u/s.504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and etc.,
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court through video conference made the following:
O R D E R
Petitioners are before this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
and P.W.5 and seizure of the club and rod used for commission of the offence. The medical evidence confirmed that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 was grievous in nature. The identity of the accused was not disputed. The property dispute between the accused and P.W.2 was proved to be the motive for the assault. Thus, the trial Court found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC and accordingly, sentenced them for different terms of imprisonment and fine. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial judge is confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, by order dated 23.03.2020.
to point out any jurisdictional error or material defect in the impugned judgment and order, either in the matter of
appreciation of evidence or in the finding recorded by the Courts below warranting interference under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
discrepancy in the date mentioned in the wound certificate has also been considered by the Courts below and I do not find any circumstance in the impugned judgments to hold a different view. As such, I do not find any patent error or infirmity in the conviction recorded against the petitioners and the sentence passed by the Courts below. The grounds for interference under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. are not made out. As a result, I do not find any grounds to admit the petition.
Petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of petition, I.A.No.1/2020 also
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below erred in appreciating evidence and convicting petitioners for offences under Sections 324, 326, 504, and 506 IPC.
Whether any jurisdictional error or material defect exists in the impugned conviction warranting admission under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Basavaraju S/o Shivappa, Somashekar S/o Honnappa
State of Karnataka
John Michael Cunha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
