Dismissed

Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Jul 2021CRL.RP/1021/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision petition filed by three accused challenging their conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts were justified in viewing the evidence as a whole to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence of petitioners affirmed.

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1021 OF 2012

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAVI S/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶7

MANJU

¶8

S/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶9

3. GANGADHAR

¶10

S/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D/NO.103, 1^ST CROSS RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR MYSURU – 576 001

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI K.B.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF NAZARBAD POLICE STATION MYSURU – 576 001

¶16

... RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF CONVICTION AND SECTENCES DATED 31.05.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC-III COURT, MYSURU IN CC.NO.3182/2007 AND CONFIRMED DATED

¶20

¶21

27.09.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O.F.T.C-II MYSURU IN CRLA.NO.100/2012 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326 R/W 34 OF IPC & ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Petitioners-Accused lay a challenge to the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2012 passed by the JMFC-III Court, Mysuru, whereby the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 of IPC in C.C. No.3182/2007, which in appeal is partly allowed by the Judgment dated 27.09.2012 in Crl. A. No.100/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Mysuru, confirming the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 and acquitting accused No.4, for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC. This petition is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 3.

¶25

The case of prosecution in a nut shell are as

¶26

follows:

¶27

¶28

On 25.05.2007 at 4.30pm in front of House No.102, accused with common intention of committing crime at Giriyabovipalya Janata Site picked up a quarrel with CW1/PW1 in respect of flow of water in a drain behind her house. While CW8 – Lakshmamma was talking to CW1, accused No.4 wrongfully restrained CW8 and assaulted her on her cheek with her hands. CW1 and CW4 made attempt to pacify the said quarrelling persons, but the accused No.3 assaulted CW4 with his hands on all over body and caused simple hurt. Accused No.1 assaulted CW4 with Machu on the right side of his head and accused No.2 assaulted CW4 on his back with steel pipe and caused grievous injury. Apart from this accused Nos.1 to 4 threatened CW1 to 4 of dire consequences to their life.

¶29

In this regard a complaint came to be registered against the accused persons by CW1 before Nazarbad Police, Mysore. On receipt of the complaint, police registered a case, visited the spot, prepared the mahazar and recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation a charge sheet is laid

¶30

¶31

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 341 & 506(b) r/w 34 of IPC.

¶32

All the accused were arrested and later enlarged on bail.

¶33

In order to prove the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses as PW1 to 9 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11 and two material objects MO1-Iron pipe & MO2-Machu. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating material evidence and did not choose to lead any evidence or produce any documents in their favour and claimed to be tried and accordingly they were tried.

¶34

After considering the evidence both oral and documentary placed on record the trial court convicted the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506(b) r/w 34 IPC. The accused were sentenced to

¶35

¶36

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Further, the trial court passed an order to pay sum of Rs.8,000/- out of the fine amount, as compensation to PW3-Lohit.

¶37

Being aggrieved, the matter was taken up in appeal, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, by acquitting accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and confirmed the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence, challenging the same, accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶38

Heard Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and Sri Thejesh.P., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶39

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused that both the Courts

¶40

¶41

below have committed a serious error in not considering the omissions, contradictions and the improvements in the case of the prosecution. He further contends that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities as it lacks the necessary ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 326 of IPC. He further contends that no cogent materials has been produced before the Court by the prosecution to prove the fact that the accused have assaulted and caused injuries to PW.3 and that the said injuries are grievous in nature. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that the injuries were caused by using iron pipe and machchu which are marked as M.Os.1 and 2. Learned counsel further contends that since the trial Court had acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506-D read with Section 34 of IPC it would mean that there was no material evidence of wrongful restraint, assault with hands and therefore, the Courts below consequently ought to have acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as well, having not done so, there is a serious miscarriage

¶42

¶43

of justice leading to conviction of accused under Section 326 of IPC.

¶44

Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution has not seized the so called razor by which accused No.1 is said to have assaulted PW.4-Lohith. Hence, there are lot of contradictions and omissions in the case of prosecution, which does not lead to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the order of conviction under Section 326 of IPC is illegal, unjust and perverse.

¶45

Learned counsel further contends that Courts below have committed an error in non-considering the medical evidence. The complainant-PW.2 has stated that the assault was on the right side of the head whereas in the evidence, it is said on the head by PWs.2 and 3, which leads to inconsistencies. He further contends that the prosecution has not seized the blood stained clothes and no statement is made to that effect. The prosecution has also not produced any material to show there being any fracture to attract the provisions

¶46

¶47

of Section 326 of IPC. Further, all allegations and overt acts are against accused No.1 and nothing is specified as against accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the said conviction and set the accused at liberty.

¶48

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader supports the judgment passed by both the Courts and contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by both the Courts. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court. He further contends that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt, merely because there are minor omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions, the same cannot be a reason to acquit the accused when the evidence taken as a whole points to the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶49

He further contends that the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their evidence has not been dislodged or nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses. He

¶50

¶51

further contends that PW.2 who is the eye witness has supported their case and the statement of PWs.5 and 6 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been marked in the evidence for which there has been no crossexamination by the defence. He further contends that Ex.P1 which is the wound certificate got marked through PW.1 clearly shows that the injuries 1 and 2 mentioned therein are grievous in nature. He further contends that in the complaint as well as in the evidence the overt acts against each of the accused has been clearly specified with regard to their acts along with the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 being the iron pipe and machchu. He has further stated that there is no crossexamination even with regard to Exs.P4 to P8 which are the photographs produced by the prosecution, which clearly depicts the nature of injuries sustained by the injured-PW.3. On the basis of these submissions, he seeks for dismissal of this petition and to confirm the conviction order passed by the Appellate Court.

¶52

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, what is required to be considered by this Court is –

¶54

“Whether the Courts below have committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment?”

¶55

On careful perusal of the entire materials placed on record it is seen that the trial court on detailed appreciation of the material evidence arrived at a conclusion of convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, which in appeal, has been confirmed with regard to the accused herein.

¶56

The Appellate Court while re-appreciating and re-analyzing the entire evidence has considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the accused and based on the materials placed before the Court has found no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial Court and accordingly, upheld the conviction order.

¶57

In the present case on hand, the

¶58

complainant who is none other than the mother was

¶59

¶60

deposed as PW.2, the injured son deposed as PW.3 and in all 09 witnesses have been examined and 11 documents have been marked and two Material ObjectsM.Os.1 and 2 have been recovered at the instance of the accused. The Doctor has given evidence supporting the wound certificate produced and marked as Ex.P1 which clearly shows that the injuries suffered by PW.3 are grievous in nature. Despite the production of photographs-Exs.P4 to P8, there is no worthwhile evidence which would prove to the contrary. The evidence of witnesses PWs.2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 have supported the case of prosecution. Merely because, there are few gaps on the part of the investigation with regard to non-seizure of razor that by itself would not give a benefit of doubt to the accused when other evidences support the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶61

The contention of learned counsel for the accused that there is no fracture of any bone, hence provisions of Section 326 of IPC would not be attracted is far fetched as Section 326 of IPC does not

¶62

¶63

contemplate the requirement of fracture of any of the body part. Section 326 of IPC reads as under:

¶64

“ 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

¶65

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to re-ceive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶66

In the present case, Ex.P1 being the wound

¶67

certificate clearly depicts the nature of assault and the injuries 1 and 2 thereunder being grievous in nature and the other injuries from 3 to 7 being simple in nature.

¶68

¶69

The evidence of the prosecution witness including that of the doctor PW-1 and the wound certificate at Ex-P1 goes to show the injuries suffered by PW3, which clearly attract the provisions of Section 326 of IPC.

¶70

This Court cannot step into the arm chair of an Appellate Court to re-appreciate and reanalyze or revisit the evidence unless grave circumstances are shown to establish that the material evidence placed before the Court has been totally ignored or not considered by both the Courts below. It is not in dispute that the accused assaulted PW.3 due to which he sustained injuries. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case despite few witnesses turning hostile and the same will not dislodge the case of the prosecution.

¶71

The Appellate Court while re-appreciating the evidence has in fact acquitted accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and confirmed the conviction of the accused/petitioner herein, thereby the Appellate Court has re-evaluated the entire evidence and the submissions which are

¶72

¶73

made herein has been considered while confirming the conviction of the accused. It is the duty cast upon the accused to show that the Appellate Court has ignored the material evidence and has erred in confirming the conviction, whereas in the present case, learned counsel for the accused has been unable to point out any such illegality committed by the Courts below leading to perversity or illegality in passing the impugned order. The Courts below have passed a reasoned and considered order, which does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed .

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinodkuamr S/O Parashuramappa Vs Lokesh S/O Bhojaraj Poojar

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Vithal @ Vishwas S/O Sadanand Bidikar

The Branch Manager Vs Honnurappa S/O Hanumanthappa

Ms Paniyravara Malli Vs State of Karnataka

H B Ravi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Suresh Vs the Union of India