Dismissed

Putta Naik v. State by Psi

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2021CRL.RP/285/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a criminal revision petition filed by a convicted accused challenging his conviction for offences under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC. The court found no legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction, dismissed the petition, and modified the fine and compensation amount following the appellate court's acquittal on one charge.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; fine for Section 504 charge set aside; compensation modified to Rs.3,500.

Putta Naik Vs State by Psi — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.285 OF 2012

¶4

BETWEEN :

¶5

PUTTA NAIK, S/O RAJU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O GONDI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 302.

¶6

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND :

¶8

STATE BY PSI, RURAL POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI. REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶9

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., HCGP)

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE P.O. FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.134/11 DATED 24.1.12 IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN SO FAR AS SECTION 324 OF IPC PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CJ AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.3095/10 IN OLD

¶11

¶12

NO.14/08 DATED 27.08.2011 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL. REVISION PETITION. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This revision petition is filed by the convicted accused, who was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- with default sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each.

¶15

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶16

Upon the complaint lodged by the Geetha Bai (PW.1), Jurisdictional Police registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC. After thorough investigation, Police filed the charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶17

It is found from the complaint averments that on 25.11.2007 at about 5.00 P.M., in front of the house of

¶18

¶19

Swamy Naik at Gondi Village, Geetha Bai (Complainant) was filling water in a vessel from the public tap and at that juncture, accused - Putta Naik came there and picked up a quarrel with her as she has replaced his vessel from the tap and further, the said Putta Naik abused the complainant in filthy language and thereby provoked her resulting in breach of public peace and also voluntarily inflicted injuries on the right and left side of the scalp with a club resulting in injuries being sustained by the complainant and sought for action against the accused.

¶20

Jurisdictional Police after registering the case and investigating the matter in detail, filed the charge sheet. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and recorded the plea. Since accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and 7 documentary evidences were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7 and also MO.1 - Club.

¶21

¶22

After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the trial Magistrate recorded the statement of accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied all incriminating circumstances and neither choose to lead any evidence on his behalf nor filed any written submissions.

¶23

Thereafter, the learned Magistrate heard the parties in detail and passed an order of conviction convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC; taking note of the fact that the accused is a Post Graduate student and incident has occurred in the year 2007, the trial Magistrate has felt necessity to show leniency in favour of the accused and ordered only a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC with a default sentence for a period of three months Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC with a default sentence for a period of three months. Out of the fine

¶24

¶25

amount, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was ordered to be paid as a compensation to the complainant - Geetha Bai and remaining amount of Rs.1,500/- was ordered to vest with State towards defraying expenses of the State.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the

¶27

accused preferred an appeal before the District Court which was numbered as Crl.A.No.134/2011.

¶28

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records and after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶30

Sri Nataraj. D, representing Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar

¶31

¶32

vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence available on record while convicting the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. He further contended that the uncorroborated self serving testimony of PW.1 has been considered by the trial Court for convicting revision petitioner which is in correct. Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence alleged against him and also the First Appellate Court is misdirected itself in not properly appreciating the said aspects of the matter and prayed for allowing revision petition.

¶33

He also pointed out that except the injured witness testimony and medical evidence and that of the oral testimony of the Investigating Officer, there is no other material on record to establish the fact that accused has in fact inflicted the injuries on PW.1 as is deposed to by her and noted by the Doctor in the Wound Certificate exhibited at Ex.P.6 and therefore, passing of the conviction

¶34

¶35

judgment by the trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court insofar as offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is thus resulted in miscarriage of justice and prayed for allowing the revision petition.

¶36

He also pointed out that after the First Appellate Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, the State has not preferred any appeal and therefore the said finding has become final.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP Sri H. R. Showri supported the impugned judgments and fairly submitted that having regard to the material available on record and finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, State did not choose to further prosecute the matter insofar as Section 504 of IPC is concerned. He further argued that mere non-filing of the appeal and non-pursuing of cause in respect of the offence under Section 504 of IPC, no serious dent has been caused to the case of the prosecution insofar as supporting the impugned judgment for the

¶38

¶39

offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC. He also pointed out that the learned Magistrate himself at the time of passing the order of sentence has shown maximum lenience having regard to the nature of the dispute and taking note of the educational qualification of the accused and therefore hardly any scope is available in this revision petition to modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the First Appellate Court in so far as offence under Section 324 of IPC and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶40

Having heard the parties in detail, the sole point that would arise for consideration in this revision petition is as under;

¶41

Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.134/2011 by modifying the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction and thus, call for interference?

¶42

¶43

In order to appreciate the case of the parties, it is necessary for this Court to bestow its attention to the oral and documentary evidence available on records.

¶44

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, except PW.1, the other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The alleged eye witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶45

However, the deposition of the PW.1 clearly depicts the incident in a categorical manner. PW.1 deposed that when she was filling the water from a public tap which was situated in front of the house of Swamy Naik - accused was also present and when PW.1 replaced her vessel with the vessel of the accused, the altercation took place and in the altercation, accused abused the PW.1 in a filthy language and also assaulted with MO.1 - stick.

¶46

She has withstood the searching crossexamination on behalf of the accused.

¶47

¶48

In Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P.6,

¶49

following injuries are noted;

¶50

1. lacerated wound over the parital region of the head measuring 2 X 2 cms.

¶51

2. lacerated wound over the left parital region of the head 1 X 1 cms.

¶52

3. lacerated wound over the left foot 1 X 1 cms.

¶53

4. tenderness over the body.

¶54

There is no delay in lodging the complaint. Accused did not choose to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him in the prosecution witnesses. Nor he offered any explanation in writing as contemplated under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. He has filed any counter complaint against PW.1. It is also found from the record that accused was pursuing Post Graduation at the time of incident whereas PW.1 is a rustic villager. PW.1 in the absence of any previous enmity or animosity why would falsely implicate accused in the matter of this nature is a question that remains unexplained by defense.

¶55

¶56

All these aspects have been taken note off by the learned Magistrate while recording the order of conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC.

¶57

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation, has categorically recorded a finding that the material available on record is sufficient to maintain the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 324 of IPC. However, on such reappreciation, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, felt that the material available on record is hardly sufficient to maintain the conviction under Section 504 of IPC and therefore, modified the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate by acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate in appeal.

¶58

After hearing the parties in detail, in the light of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the

¶59

¶60

revision petitioner and High Court Government Pleader, this Court does not find any error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity. The order of First Appellate Court reaching a finding that accused is responsible for the bodily injuries found on the body of PW.1 as these were depicted in Ex.P.6 - Wound Certificate.

¶61

Therefore, the trial Magistrate and the First Appellate Court was justified in recording an order of conviction against the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.

¶62

Insofar as sufficiency of sentence is concerned, the trial Magistrate has used his discretion and taking note of the fact that the accused is pursuing the Post Graduation as on the date of incident and incident is of the year 2007, and has awarded only fine for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and awarded fine of Rs.5,000/and Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. However, having regard to the fact that the First Appellate Court has set aside the order of conviction

¶63

¶64

passed against the revision petitioner herein for the offence under Section 504 of IPC, the fine amount ordered for the offence under Section 504 of IPC is also set aside. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the victim in a sum of Rs.6,000/- out of the fine amount of Rs.7,500/also got modified. Accordingly, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Magistrate in the absence of any revision petition or the appeal by the State in respect of the order of acquittal insofar as offence under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, the modification order passed by the learned Session Judge in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,500/- to PW.1 needs no interference. Accordingly following order is passed;

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The revision petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

HA/-

Putta Naik v. State by Psi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putta Naik v. State by Psi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehboob S/O Madarsab Nadaf, Vs the State of Karnataka

S Suman Vs the State of Karnataka

Dilsad Sayed Vs State of Karnataka

Manju S/O Armugam Vs the State of Karnataka

K Umesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravishankar Vs State by New Extension Police