Partly allowed

Irappa S/O. Basappa Soppdla v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 May 2023CRL.RP/100133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in criminal revision allowed petitioners in part, holding evidence insufficient for conviction under Sections 504/506 IPC due to lack of proof of intentional insult. Court modified sentence, convicting on other charges but substituting heavy imprisonment with fines and lighter default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners acquitted of Sections 504/506 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 sentenced to fine Rs. 1,000 for Sections 143/147/148/323 (default: 1 month) and Rs. 2,000 for Section 324 (default: 2 months).

Irappa S/O. Basappa Soppdla Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100133 OF 2014 (397-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

IRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA SOPPDLA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.LAXMI NAGAR, MAMADAPUR TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶9

BASAPPA BALAPPA SOPPDLA AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.LAXMI NAGAR, MAMADAPUR TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶10

RAMESH MAHADEVAPPA SOPPDLA AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.LAXMI NAGAR, MAMADAPUR TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶11

Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA
J
MAMATHA Date:
2023.05.27
20:30:20
+0530

¶12

BALAPPA MAHADEVAPPA SOPPDLA AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.LAXMI NAGAR, MAMADAPUR TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶13

RAYAPPA SHIVAPUTRAPPA SOPPDLA AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.LAXMI NAGAR, MAMADAPUR TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR P1, P3 TO P5 – REVISION PETITION AS AGAINST P-2 IS ABATED)

¶16

2 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.05.2014 PASSED BY THE Vth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.13/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.01.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK, IN C.C.NO.827/2008 AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Revision petitioners-accused feeling aggrieved by

¶24

judgment of the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.13/2013 on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, dated 8.5.2014, preferred this appeal.

¶25

Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶26

3 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶27

The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that land of complainant and accused are adjacent to each other in Mamadapur village. There was neem tree on the boundary of the land of complainant and accused and in that connection, there was a dispute between them over the said neem tree. On 11.5.2008 at 11.30 a.m. complainant and his sons questioned accused persons as to why they have cut neem tree. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object of causing hurt to the complainant being armed with deadly weapons like club and scythe, assaulted the complainant and two sons by means of club, further abused them in filthy language and administered threat to take away his life. On these allegations made in the complaint, case was registered in crime No.154/2008 of Gokak rural police station. The investigating officer after having completed the investigation filed the charge sheet.

¶28

In response to summons, accused Nos. 1 to 5

¶29

have appeared through their counsel. The Trial Court after

¶30

4 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶31

being prima facie satisfied framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused relied on the oral and documentary evidence of PWs.1 to 11 and the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7, so also got identified M.O.1 and 2.

¶32

On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused have denied all incriminating material evidence appearing against them and claimed false case is filed. The Trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, convicted all the accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.

¶33

Accused Nos. 1 to 5 challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the First Appellate Court on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.13/2013 and the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶34

5 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶35

In view of the order of this Court dated

¶36

06.09.2022, the case against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is ordered to be abated.

¶37

Revision petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 feeling aggrieved by judgment of the First Appellate Court preferred this revision petition contending that Trial Court has not appreciated the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 in the light of the dispute between them over neem tree situated on the boundary in between the land of complainant and accused. The alleged overt act of accused in causing injuries to PWs.1 to 3 in the incident claimed by complainant is not supported by medical evidence. The abrasion injuries found on the back of complainant as per wound certificate Ex.P.4 cannot be caused if anybody is assaulted by means of club. The medical evidence stands contrary to oral testimony of PW.3. The approach and appreciation of documentary evidence of both courts below and finding recorded cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set aside the judgment of both courts

¶38

6 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶39

below. Consequently, to acquit all the accused from the charges leveled against them.

¶40

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶41

On careful perusal of oral and documentary

¶42

evidence placed on record, it would go to show that the incident in question took place on 11.5.2008 at 11.30 am. when the complainant and his sons objected for accused to cut neem tree situated on the boundary in between the land of complainant and accused. It is alleged in the complaint Ex.P.1 that all the accused by forming themselves into unlawful assembly being armed with club and scythe have assaulted on complainant and his two sons- PWs.2 and 3, due to which they sustained injures found in the wound certificates-Exs.P4 and 5. The alleged overt act is that accused No.3-Ramesh by means of scythe assaulted PW.3 over his head and accused No.1-Irappa by means of club assaulted on PW.3 over his left shoulder, when the complainant went to rescue his sons, accused No.2-Basappa and accused No.3-Ramesh by means of club and hands assaulted. Due to which, he sustained injuries over the back.

¶43

7 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶44

The prosecution mainly relied on the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3 and the independent witness PW.7. The said evidence is sought to be corroborated by medical evidence of PW.8 and the wound certificates of PWs. 1 and 2 as per Exs.P.4 and 5.

¶45

PW.1 complainant who filed the complaint Ex.P.1 and his sons PWs. 2 and 3 have deposed consistently about the incident that took place on 11.5.2008 at 11.30 am when they questioned accused cutting neem tree situated on the boundary in between the land of complainant and accused. They have also deposed to the effect that accused No.3Ramesh by means of scythe assaulted PW.2 over his head. Accused No.1-Irappa by means of club assaulted on the left shoulder of PW-3, when complainant went to rescue his two sons, he was assaulted by accused No.2-Basappa and accused No.3- Ramesh by means of club and hands. Due to the said overt act of accused, PWs.1 and 2 have sustained injuries as found in the wound certificates Exs.P.4 and 5. PW.7 is independent witness, who is neighboring land owner also speaks about the incident of quarrel that took place on 11.5.2008. The accused No.3 by means of scythe assaulted

¶46

8 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶47

on complainant and rest of the accused have assaulted on PW.3. Thereafter, they left the place by administering threat to take away the life of complainant and his two sons. It is true that there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and 7 while referring the overt act of accused in causing injuries to PWs.1 and 2. However, mathematical accuracy of participation of each of the accused in inflicting the injuries cannot be expected when group of persons assaulted on PWs. 1 to 3. The presence of accused Nos. 1 to 5 being armed with club and scythe and they have participated in causing physical assault to PWs. 1 and 2 has been deposed by PW.1 to 3 during the course of their evidence before the Court. The said evidence is corroborated by evidence of PW.7, who is neighboring land owner and pacified quarrel. Absolutely, there are no valid grounds to disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses PWs.1 and 2 and the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.4 and 5, which is duly corroborated by oral and documentary evidence of PW.8-Dr.Mangal Maruti Sandi, who treated

¶48

9 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶49

PWs.1 and 2 and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P.4 and 5.

¶50

The Trial Court has convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. It is alleged in the complaint Ex.P.1 that accused alleged to have abused the complainant in filthy language and administered threat to take away their life. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is totally silent on the said aspect of the matter. It is only deposed by PW.2 that accused have used rough language to his father. The prosecution is required to prove the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande V/s. State of Maharashtra , reported in AIR 2014 SC 957 , wherein it has been observed and held that Section 504 of IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz., a) Intentional insult; b) the insult must be such as to given provocation to the persons insulted and, c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The

¶51

10 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶52

intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting offences is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 of IPC.

¶53

In the present case, the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 is not in conformity with the legal requirement as enunciated in the above referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court. The mere allegation of accused having abused and administered threat to take away the life of complainant itself cannot be said as sufficient to prove the allegations made against them for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The trial Court without appreciating the legal position

¶54

11 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶55

has recorded improper finding holding that prosecution has proved the charge under Section 504 and 506 of IPC. The findings recorded by trial Court which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court with regard to both these offences cannot be legally sustained.

¶56

The prosecution out of the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and 7 coupled with the evidence of PW-8 Dr.Mangal Maruti Sanadi who treated PWs-1 and 2 and issued wound certificate Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 has proved that PWs-1 and 2 have suffered injuries due to overt act of accused as per Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. Further, the accused were armed with deadly weapons. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court was justified in holding accused 1 and 3 to 5 being guilt for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 of IPC.

¶57

Now, coming to the imposition of sentence, the trial Court has imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for all the above referred offences and the said sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The imposition of sentence for the proved offences must be proportionate to the offences

¶58

12 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶59

committed by them. The Court is required to take pragmatic approach looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injuries suffered by the injured, the circumstances under which the incident took place and the other related attendant circumstances while imposing the sentence.

¶60

In the present case, indisputably the complainant and accused are the neighbouring land owners. The dispute between them was due to neem tree situated over the boundary in between the land of complainant and accused. The incident took place in a spur of moment without there being any preparation and the overt act of accused in causing injuries to PWs-1 and 2 is due to complainant questioning cutting of neem true situated on the boundary in between the land of complainant and accused. If the above referred factual aspects of the matter and nature of evidence on record are taken into consideration with reference to the injuries suffered by PWs-1 and 2 as per wound certificates Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, in my opinion, the imposition of sentence

¶61

of imprisonment appears to be too harsh and the same needs to be interfered with by this Court.

¶62

13 - CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶63

Looking to the facts and facts of the case, in my opinion, if the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323 of IPC, in default of payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each of the offences. If an amount of Rs.2,000/- each is imposed for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months is ordered, will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Criminal Revision Petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 is hereby partly allowed.

¶66

The judgment of the first Appellate Court on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Crl.A.No.13/2013 dated 08.05.2014 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.827/2008 dated 08.01.2013 is hereby ordered to be modified as under:

¶67

The accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323, in default of payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each of the offences.

¶68

14 -

¶69

CRL.RP No. 100133 of 2014

¶70

The accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.

¶71

Accused No.1 and 3 to 5 are acquitted for the offence under Section 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶72

The registry is directed to transmit the records with the copy of this judgment to trial Court.

¶73

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶74

VB-from paragraphs 1 to 12 JM-from paragraph 13 till end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Irappa S/O. Basappa Soppdla v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irappa S/O. Basappa Soppdla 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hussain Sab S/O Malkesab Koli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dharmanna Dharma S/O Nagalingappa Harijan Vs State of Karnataka

Arham Ventures Vs Conecc Concrete Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Mohammed Ansar S/O Ibrahim Byari Vs Muzawar Shabbir Hssain

Sri Chayappa S/O Gururanganna Tadrahalli Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Santosh Murkalmani S/O. Kotresh Vs Smt. Harpanhalli Veeramma