Partly allowed

Puttamallaiah v. State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1151/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the revision petition partly, modified the appellate conviction to pay only a fine instead of imprisonment for Section 324 IPC offence due to lack of evidence for other charges and circumstances of the case.

What did the court decide?

Sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,000/- for expenses, Rs.8,000/- compensation); accrued deposit adjusted; no imprisonment in default of fine payment.

Puttamallaiah Vs State by Chikkanayakanahalli… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1151 OF 2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Puttamallaiah, S/o Basavegowda, Aged about 51 years, R/o Madihalli Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District-641603.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Shashidhar Belagumba, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶12

Rangaswamy

¶13

S/o Malleshappa,

¶14

R/o Madihalli Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District.

¶15

(Amended the cause title as per the court order dated 07.12.2012)

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Vishwa Murthy, HCGP for R1; Sri M.Vinayakeerthy, Advocate for R2)

¶18

:: 2 ::

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.09.2011 passed by the C.J. & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli in C.C.No.185/2009 and also the judgment and order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the P.O., F.T.C., Tiptur in Crl.A.No.85/2011.

¶20

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for hearing through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner being the accused in C.C.185/2009 on the file of JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli suffered a judgment of

¶23

conviction for the offences under sections 504, 506 and 324 IPC. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 504 IPC, fine of Rs.500/with default sentence of simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under section 506 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of simple

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

imprisonment for three months in relation to offence under section 324 IPC.

¶26

The prosecution case is that on 4.2.2009,

¶27

at about 6.30 PM near Manchasandra – Kuppur Road, when Rangaswamy was walking near his fields, the petitioner picked up quarrel with him and then assaulted with a stone causing injuries

¶28

on the left elbow and left knee and gave life threat. The trial court being convinced with the evidence placed before it by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the accused should be convicted. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate which shows presence of lacerated wound on the left elbow and contusion over lateral aspect of upper third of the leg.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Fast Track Court, Tiptur. The appeal was partly allowed, petitioner

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

was acquitted of the offences under sections 504 and 506 IPC. However, the conviction in relation to offence under section 324 IPC was confirmed. But the sentence was modified directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

¶32

I have heard Sri Shashidhar Belagumba, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court.

¶33

Though the findings of the trial court are that the prosecution was able to prove its case in relation to offences under sections 504, 506 and 324 IPC, I find that the appellate court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence to acquit the

¶34

:: 5 ::

¶35

petitioner of the offences under sections 504 and 506 of IPC. There is no material evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of these two offences. However, Ex.P3 clearly shows presence of two wounds. It has come in evidence that the petitioner assaulted PW1 Rangaswamy with a stone and therefore the offence under section 324 IPC is made out. In the facts and circumstances, the appellate court has come to conclusion that the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 324 IPC is to be modified. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the uncle of PW1 and the petitioner’s wife was injured by PW1 and in that connection PW1 was prosecuted in a different case.

¶36

Having regard to the circumstances under

¶37

which the incident is said to have taken place, interest of justice will be met if the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine only. The sentence of

¶38

:: 6 ::

¶39

imprisonment imposed by the appellate court can be modified. Hence, I pass the following: -

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(a) Revision Petition is partly allowed.

¶42

(b) The judgment of the appellate court is modified.

¶43

¶44

petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- only and in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶45

Now it is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,000/- as per the order dated 07.12.2012 of this court. Out of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed now, Rs.2,000/- shall be defrayed towards prosecution

¶46

:: 7 ::

¶47

expenses and Rs.8,000/is awarded as compensation to PW1. Excess amount lying in deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner by the trial court.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

ckl/-

Puttamallaiah v. State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttamallaiah v. State by Chikkanayakanahalli Police

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 Amit Mavi Vs State of Karnataka

Ali Ashpak @ Asfak Hanif Thara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Abrar Kazi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yamuna Vs the State

Sri Vijaya Vs the State

Syed Atheek Ahamed Vs Smt. Nagamma