Partly allowed

Sri Harijanara Raghu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021CRL.RP/821/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging convictions for causing voluntary hurt. The High Court allowed the petition in part, confirmed conviction under Section 324 IPC, but modified the sentence to impose a fine payable as compensation to victims.

What did the court decide?

Conviction for Section 324 IPC confirmed. Sentence modified to a fine of Rs.10,000 per accused payable as compensation to victims; upon failure to pay, one year simple imprisonment.

Sri Harijanara Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.821 OF 2012

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI HARIJANARA RAGHU S/O.BODA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS COOLIE

¶7

SRI HARIJANARA GANESH S/O.BODA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS COOLIE

¶8

HARIJANARA RAVI S/O.BODA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS COOLIE

¶9

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT PARANE VILLAGE MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI M.S.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY NAPOKLU POLICE STATION, MADIKERI TALUK

¶13

¶14

KODAGU DISTRICT REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION DATED 10.07.2012 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.50/2007 BY AD.HOC DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORDER DATED 23.06.2007 PASSED IN C.C.NO.454/2006 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADIKERI CONVICTING PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.500 IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.09.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners-accused lay a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2007 passed in CC.No.454/2006 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Madikeri, convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC and convicting accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and acquitting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of IPC in C.C.No.454/2006, which in appeal is modified by judgment dated 10.07.2012 in Crl.A.No.50/2007 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused No.1 under Section 326 of IPC.

¶23

The case of prosecution in nut shell is as follows:

¶24

On 17.11.2005 at about 8.30PM the accused persons

¶25

with common intention assaulted PW.2 in front of shop of

¶26

¶27

Kochamada Thammaiah within the jurisdiction of Napoklu Police Station, Bavali village as PW.2 had demanded accused No.1 to pay his wages of Rs.300/-. Accused No.1 refused to pay the wages stating that there is no amount due to be paid. A verbal quarrel ensued between the two and accused No.1 assaulted PW.2 with sickle on his forehead and threatened to do away with his life. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted PW.2 with club and thereafter the accused persons assaulted PW.1 who came to pacify the accused. Thereby causing grievous injuries to PW.2 and committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶28

After issuance of summons, all the accused

¶29

persons appeared before the Court and were enlarged on bail. Thereafter charge sheet was laid by the Police and charge came to be framed against accused persons. The accused persons denied all the incriminating charge against them and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the parties went into trial.

¶30

¶31

In order to prove the case, prosecution

¶32

examined in all nine witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked five documents at Exs.P1 to 5 and three Material Objects as MOs.1 to 3. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which were denied by the accused persons. However, they have not led any evidence on their behalf.

¶33

On the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary and the material objects marked before the Court, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as against accused No.1. The learned trial Judge also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC as against accused

¶34

¶35

persons. The learned trial Judge acquitted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of IPC.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC as against accused persons and for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as against accused No.1, an appeal came to be filed in Crl.A.No.50/2007 before the Sessions Court, which came to be partly allowed, acquitting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. It is this order which is put in challenge by the accused persons in this revision petition.

¶37

Heard Sri M.S.Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that both the Courts below have committed a serious error in convicting the accused persons contrary to the evidence

¶39

¶40

and materials placed before the Court. He further contends that both the Courts have not applied its mind while passing the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. He further contends that it is the case of the complainant that accused persons assaulted PW.2/Nani, in front of the shop belonging to Kochamada Thammaiah, whereas in his evidence he has deposed that the accused persons assaulted PW.2 at his residence. He further contends that the distance between the shop of Kochamada Thammaiah and his residence is one kilometer. Both the statements are contradicting each other and hence, the same cannot be believed and the Courts below ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons when there is contradictory statement and evidence.

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends

¶42

that evidence and cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 are contrary to each other. He further contends that the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 who are the Doctors who have treated the patient and issued wound certificate respectively have given divergent opinion in respect of injuries sustained by the PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3

¶43

¶44

and that of PWs.7 and 8 are not insync with each other. Hence, the same cannot be believed and when there is contradictory evidence and statements, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused persons, the petitioners herein.

¶45

Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners/accused and the complainant are related to each other and earlier also, there have been incidents of quarrel between two parties which ultimately ended in an amicable settlement between the parties. He contends that in the present factual scenario of the matter where PWs.1 and 2 are related to accused, both the Courts should have taken a lenient view and acquitted the accused. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as against accused No.1. But the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is arbitrary and erroneous and the same requires to be set aside and the accused deserve to be acquitted. On the basis of these submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶46

¶47

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned order passed by both the Courts and contends that there is no illegality or perversity or legal infraction in the orders passed by both the Courts. She further contends that the Appellate Court having acquitted the accused persons for the major offence under Section 326 of IPC has convicted the accused for lesser offence under Section 324 of IPC based on the available material evidence and there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the said impugned order passed by both the Courts. She prays for dismissal of this petition and to confirm the judgment and conviction passed by both the Courts.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the following points arise for consideration before this Court -

¶49

“(i) Whether there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below?

¶50

(ii) What Order?”

¶51

¶52

It is not in dispute that PWs.1 and 2 are related

¶53

to accused persons. They are all working together as coolies and there is daily involvement, engagement and interaction between them in their daily avocation of life. It is the case of prosecution that PW.1/Smt.Ammani had gone for a coolie work along with the accused persons for cutting of firewood due to which she was entitled to a sum of Rs.300/-. While all of them met near the shop of one Kochamada Thammaiah, PW.2 demanded the accused persons legitimate daily wage of Rs.300/-. This resulted in verbal altercation amongst the parties leading to abuses in filthy languages and ended up with accused No.1 assaulting PW.2 with sickle i.e. M.O.1 on his forehead and his right hand, resulting in bleeding injuries to PW.2. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also assaulted PW.2 with wooden sticks i.e. M.Os.2 and 3.

¶54

Based on these factual aspects, the prosecution has adduced evidence. PW.1 who is none other than the mother of PW.2 supported the case of prosecution. PW.2/Nani is the one who was assaulted by the accused persons and who was grievously injured and he has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW.3/Ashoka is the son-in-law of PW.1

¶55

¶56

and brother-in-law of PW.2 who has also supported the case of prosecution and has identified the accused persons assaulting PW.1. He has clearly stated in his evidence that he has identified M.Os.1 to 3 as they were weapons used in causing injuries to the injured victim and it is he who has taken the injured to the Police Station and thereafter to the Hospital. PW.4/ Poovanna has stated that he has seen the incident as he had gone to his brother’s arrack shop to bring some articles, where he saw the accused persons and PWs.1 and 2 in a verbal conversation. He specifically states that when PW.2 demanded accused No.1 to pay his wages, same was refused and accused No.1 attacked PW.2 with sickle on

¶57

his head and hand. While the mother of PW.2 went to rescue the accused No.1 assaulted on her right hand with sickle and the other accused attacked PW.2 with clubs and wooden stick. He has also stated that he has signed the spot panchanama as per Ex.P2(a). Nothing much has been elicited in the cross-examination by the defence counsel.

¶58

PW.5/Nanja is the husband of PW.1 and father of PW.2. He has also supported the case of prosecution and nothing much has been elicited in his cross-examination.

¶59

¶60

PW.6 is none other than the Head Constable of Napoklu Police Station who has received the complaint and registered the FIR.

¶61

PW.7/Dr.Manju is a Government Doctor who has stated that he has treated PWs.1 and 2 after having been referred from Napoklu Government Hospital. PW.8/Dr.Babu Rajendra Prasad has deposed that he has examined the injured-PW.2 and he has got issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and on perusal of Ex.P4, it is seen that the injury mentioned therein at No.1 is grievous in nature and injury at No.2 is simple in nature with regard to PW.2 and the injuries of PW.1 are described as simple in nature at Ex.P5. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross-examination of these two Doctors i.e. PWs.7 and 8.

¶62

PW.9/Arun Kumar Salanke is the PSI who conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet. He has recorded the statement of the witnesses and he has supported the case of prosecution. Nothing material has been elicited through this witness in favour of the accused persons.

¶63

¶64

On the basis of these material evidence and documents exhibited and material objects, the trial Court has rightfully convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC as against all accused and for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as against accused No.1. Since the trial Court did not find any material to attract the offence punishable under Section 502(2) of IPC, the accused persons came to be acquitted.

¶65

The Appellate Court having considered the entire evidence and the documents and on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the entire material evidence placed on record, set aside the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as against accused No.1 and confirmed the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

¶66

It is seen that the trial Court has convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to

¶67

¶68

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The Appellate Court having considered all the material evidence has come to a conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is made out and accordingly, sentenced the accused.

¶69

It is apparent from the records of the case and the wound certificates produced at Exs.P4 and P5 that the injured victim have suffered the injuries mentioned therein. Though it may not be a deliberate intentions to cause fatal injuries either to cause death or murder, the offence under Section 324 of IPC is made out. The point as discussed earlier that would fall for consideration of this Court is whether there is any illegality in the said impugned order.

¶70

Having heard the detailed arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the entire materials on record, I do not find any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The powers of the revisional Courts of Judicial Review is to a limited extent of finding out whether there is any perversity or illegality or gross violation in not

¶71

¶72

considering the material evidence and arbitrariness in the impugned order. This Court cannot sit in the arm chair of an Appellate Court to re-evaluate the evidence and materials once again. In the present case on hand, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that there is gross illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Courts below. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly pleaded before this Court to consider showing leniency in imposition of sentence to the accused. On perusal of Section 324 of IPC, it is seen that the punishment would be imprisonment of either description for the term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Therefore, even under the sentencing policy, it is discretion of the Courts in imposing sentence based on the proportionality of the offence and while doing so, the Courts will have to keep in mind, the social status of the parties, the relationship between the parties and the actual circumstances in which the offence has taken place. In the present case on hand,

¶74

¶75

parties being related to each other and belonging to lower strata of the Society. The discretion requires to be exercised diligently in imposing sentence.

¶76

It is also seen in the present case that PW.2 has suffered grievous injuries and PW.1 has suffered simple injuries and were inpatient for few days by taking the said treatment. The Courts will also have to keep in mind the principle of Victim Compensation Scheme and award certain compensation to the victim for the injuries sustained by them, though criminal prosecution is not for recovery of damages but the compensation can certainly be awarded to the victim for the injuries sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-

¶79

in-part;

¶80

(ii) The judgment of conviction for the offence under Sec-324 of IPC against petitioner/accused is confirmed.

¶81

(iii) The order of sentence passed by the Appellate Court as against accused

¶82

¶83

Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is modified by sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- by each accused to PWs.1 and 2; in default of payment of the above said fine, the accused persons namely, the petitioners herein shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year;

¶84

(iv) Ordered accordingly.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

JUDGE

¶87

VK LB

Sri Harijanara Raghu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harijanara Raghu v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Bette Gowda Vs Sri. K v Naidu

Govindaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Prabhakar Murthy Vs Mr M S Shivakumar

Sanjeeva Vs Smt Honnamma

Sri Chennarayappa Vs Sri Munivenkatappa

Narayana Vs N Deepak