Dismissed

Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023CRL.RP/182/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka rejected the challenge to the conviction and sentence of four accused for assault causing grievous hurt with an iron rod. Upholding the lower courts' findings based on the consistent testimony of the injured complainant and corroborating evidence, the Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the con

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed; conviction and sentence are affirmed; accused to surrender for sentence.

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.182 OF 2014

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAVI S/O. MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶10

MARIMALLPPA S/O. LATE. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶11

SHIVA S/O. MARIMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶12

MALLU @ MALLAPPA S/O. MARIMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HANGALA VILLAGE & HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK-57111.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GUNDLUPET POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THIS COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C. NO.85/2008 DATED 25-01-2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC,

¶20

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶22

GUNDLUPET, CONFIRMED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5/2010 DATED 18-04-2012 ON THE FILE OF SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KOLLEGAL, SITTING AT CHAMARAJANAGAR AND ETC.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON 28-07-2023 AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 have assailed the judgment of their conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.85/2008 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gundlupet dated 25.01.2010 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5/2010 passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track, Kollegal sitting at Chamarajanagar have preferred this Revision Petition.

¶26

Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶27

That injured Basavanna S/o. Veerappa resident of the address so stated in the complaint gave his statement before the police when he was in the Government Hospital, Gundlupet on 25.12.2007 at 9.30 a.m., alleging that he is an agriculturist by profession.

¶28

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶30

With regard to the user of the road leading to his landed property their exists a dispute between himself and his relatives i.e., son of Muddappa by name Ravi, sons of Marimallappa by name Shiva and Mallu and Marimallappa S/o. Late Basappa. With regard to the said road, the aforesaid persons used to often quarrel with him.

¶31

It is alleged that, on 24.12.2007 at about 9.00

¶32

p.m., he was moving towards his landed property by crossing the house of the aforesaid persons by walk, the aforesaid persons restrained him from moving further and stopped him. Ravi, Marimallappa and Mallu all the three caught hold him by hugging him. The son of Marimallappa by name Shiva by using the iron rod stabbed on his right knee and also assaulted on his right leg. Blood started oozing. They abused him in filthy language and warned him that if again he come to quarrel with regard to the landed property, they will kill him. The said Shiva threw away the said iron rod and all of them went away. As there was a bleeding from the injury sustained by him, complainant could not stand and walk and he lost his consciousness. That on 25.12.2007 at about 7.00 a.m.,

¶33

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶35

he shouted loudly and called his wife. At that time Maheshappa S/o. Bellappa, Mahadevappa S/o. Nagappa came there and shifted him to Gundlupet Government Hospital in an auto rickshaw. In the hospital he gave a statement/complaint as per Ex.P.1 before the police.

¶36

Based upon this complaint a crime was registered by Gundlupet Police in Crime No.307/2007 and criminal law was set in motion by sending the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P.4.

¶37

PW.6-Yogendrakumar being the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation, collected the material documents and after completing the formalities of the investigation and after its completion filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 326 and 506 R/w/. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶38

The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined in all 10 witnesses from PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5 with respective signatures

¶39

¶40

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶41

thereon. M.O. No.1 - Iron rod is marked. On behalf of

¶42

defence, Ex.D.1 was marked.

¶43

The learned Magistrate on evaluation of the evidence and on hearing the arguments found the accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 326 and 506 R/w. Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as under:

¶44

“Acting U/s 248(2) of Criminal Procedure Code the accused No.1 to 4 have convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 341, 326, 506 R/w sec 34 of IPC.

¶45

The accused No. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month for the offences punishable U/s 341 R/w sec 34 of IPC.

¶46

The accused No. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 years for the offences punishable U/s. 326 R/w sec of IPC.

¶47

The accused No. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year for the offences punishable U/s. 506 R/w sec 34 of IPC.

¶48

Acting U/s. 357(3) Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No. 1 to 4 shall have to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to complainant towards the injury, loss and pain.

¶49

¶50

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶51

Furnish free copy of the judgment to accused No. 1 to 4.”

¶52

This judgment of conviction and sentence was

¶53

challenged by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crl.A. No.5/2010 before the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, the then Fast Track Court, Kollegal sitting at Chamarajanagar. The said appellate Court on hearing the arguments confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate vide judgment dated 18.04.2012.

¶54

Now, these accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court assailing both the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court by filing this Revision petition under Section 397 R/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

¶55

It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 4 that, except the evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence placed on record by the prosecution so as to prove the guilt of the accused. He submits that, PW.1 injured is a drunkard and because of ill-will in between accused Nos.1 to 4 and complainant with regard to user of the road, a false complaint was lodged alleging

¶56

¶57

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶58

that these accused have assaulted him by using M.O.

¶59

No.1. As he is a drunkard, under intoxication he had fell down and sustained the said injuries as stated in the wound certificate. Therefore, as the accused persons are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in this criminal case because of ill-will and animosity. In support of his submission he relied upon various evidence spoken to by the witnesses and submits that accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for Hon’ble acquittal and accordingly, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments by allowing this Revision Petition.

¶60

As against this submission, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that, PW.1 being the injured witness having suffered in the hands of these accused persons by sustaining grievous injuries has given a complaint. As accused are his relatives from his paternal side, there was no occasion by the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. With regard to the user of the road in the landed property and the complainant, these accused Nos.1 to 4 were doing galata with the complainant. It is submitted that, about 8 days

¶61

¶62

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶63

back prior to the incident there was some galata. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were grinding axe against complainant and on the day of incident, when the complainant PW.1 was moving to his landed property at 9.00 p.m. by walk, at that time these accused Nos.1 to 4 using that opportunity of moving of complainant, restrained him, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with iron rod. Because of this assault on the complainant on his right leg and knee, he sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly both the courts have concurrently held the accused persons guilty. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the revision petition as it has no merits.

¶64

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the both the sides. Perused the records. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:

¶65

i) Whether the learned Trial Court and first appellate Court have committed illegality or perversity in finding the accused guilty.

¶66

ii) If so, whether judgment of conviction of sentence passed by the Trial Court afford by the

¶67

¶68

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶69

first appellate Court require interference by this Court?

¶70

iii) What order?

¶71

Point Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together:

¶72

It is the case of assault on the person of the complainant PW.1 by name Basavanna S/o. Veerappa. With regard to the assault on him by the accused persons he has filed a complaint as per Ex.P.1 on 25.12.2007 at 9.30 a.m., when he was taking treatment at Government Hospital, Gundlupet. On the same day itself the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. He also has recorded the statements of witnesses as required under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶73

PW.1 being the complainant has reiterated his complaint allegations in his evidence on oath. He has given a graphic account of assault on him by the accused persons. He states that on the day of incident i.e., about 8 months back prior to his giving evidence, he was moving

¶74

¶75

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶76

towards his landed property for watching at 9.30 p.m., when he was moving in front of the house of Marimallappa, at that time, when the complainant came in front of the house of Marimallappa, all the accused restrained him from moving further and caught hold him, abused him. Accused No.3-Shiva by taking the iron rod assaulted on the right knee of the complainant. He sustained fracture to his right leg. Accused No.4 by using iron rod assaulted him on his thigh. Because of this assault on him he lost his consciousness. Accused also gave life threat to him. In the morning, he was shifted to hospital and there he gave a complaint.

¶77

This PW.1 was cross examined at length by the counsel for the accused persons. PW.1 has admitted that, the landed property of himself and accused persons are situated side by side and he was objecting for the last 3-4 years to the accused not to move in his landed property. He has stated that, in his village there were 300 houses. He denied the suggestion that, when the said incident has taken place there was movement of people on the road. According to him, as he was caught hold by the accused

¶78

¶79

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶80

persons and there was no occasion to breath, therefore he could not cry or shout. Accused-Shiva was holding the iron rod. Through out his evidence, he is consistent that, it was accused who assaulted him. With regard to the dispute as stated by PW.1, it is not denied.

¶81

PW.2 has stated that, he knew about the galata which has taken place about 10 months back prior to he giving evidence on the morning. It is his evidence that on the following day at about 7.00 a.m., he noticed gathering of people in front of the house of the accused persons and he went there. He noticed that there was a fracture to the right leg of the complainant and he was unable to speak. He noticed iron rod and three stones. The complainant/PW.1 was unable to walk. Therefore, himself and Mahadevappa shifted PW.1 to the hospital. He identified M.O. No.1 as a weapon.

¶82

It has come in the cross examination of PW.2 that, in his village Hangala the population is 4-5 thousand. He had married a sister’s daughter of Basavanna. He is a witness who came to the scene of offence on the following day of incident and shifted the injured with help of

¶83

¶84

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶85

Mahadevappa. He says that, Basavanna is having a drinking habit. He denied other suggestions. His evidence is to be accepted to the extent that, he shifted the injured to the hospital with the help of Mahadevappa.

¶86

PW.3-Mahadevapp a corroborates the evidence of PW.2 in material particulars and deposed with regard to shifting PW.1 to the hospital. He was partly declared as hostile witness by the prosecution.

¶87

PW.4-Nagappa, PW.5-Thammappa, PW.7Nagamallappa are the panchas to Ex.P.3 and they have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to preparation of panchanama at Ex.P.3 and seizure of M.O. No.1.

¶88

PW.8-Dr. T.K. Prabhakar has deposed before

¶89

the Court that, on 25.12.2007 at about 9.00 a.m., he medically examined PW.1 and noticed the following injures:

¶90

“1) Punctured wound over lower end of right leg 24 X ½ inches. 2) Swelling and defamatory of right lower wrist.”

¶91

¶92

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶93

To that effect he has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P.5. The said injuries are as under:

¶94

“ Report from CSI (Cerebro Spinal Index), treated in Memorial Hospital:

¶95

Referring X-ray No.83251 so fractured dislocation of the bones of right leg lower abdomen any among with opinion done with diagnoses No.1 and simple diagnosis No.2 with grievous injury noted.”

¶96

According to doctor when PW.1 was brought to the hospital, he informed the names of assailant. No effective cross examination is directed to the doctor so as to disbelieve his evidence. It is the opinion of the doctor that if one is assaulted by using M.O. No.1, the injuries so stated in the wound certificates are possible.

¶97

PW.9-Gangamma is the wife of PW.1. She is a hear-say witness to the said incident. She speaks with regard to galata in respect of user of the road by the accused persons. PW.10-Rajanna is the charge sheeting Officer. PW.5-Yogendrakumar is the Investigating Officer

¶98

in this case and spoken with regard to the manner in which he conducted the investigation. Though lengthy

¶99

¶100

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶101

cross examination is directed to the aforesaid witnesses

¶102

but nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of the said witnesses so as to disbelieve their version given in the examination in chief.

¶103

So far as sustaining fracture by PW.1 is concerned, it is not in dispute. Section 320 of the IPC defines grievous hurt. On reading the provisions of Section 320 of IPC, there are eight kinds of grievous injuries so stated in the Section. Amongst them Section 320 of IPC, ‘seventhly’ speaks of “fracture or dislocation of a bone of tooth comes under the definition of grievous injuries” .

¶104

25. Here the weapon used is an iron rod which is a hard weapon. Section 326 of IPC specifically speaks that “Whoever, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shouting, 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 exclusively substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the

¶105

¶106

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶107

human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive 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 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶108

If this provision of law is meticulously read, definitely the weapon so used in offence which is likely to cause death. It is the iron rod. So that means the definition so stated with regard to the grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of IPC and stated under section 326 of IPC are complied by the prosecution by adducing acceptable evidence.

¶109

In the case of present nature, when ill will is established, injuries sustained because of assault on a person of PW.1, the inference that can be drawn is that, because of assault committed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention the complainantPW.1 has sustained the injuries so narrated in Ex.P.5.

¶110

In assault cases injured are the best witnesses

¶111

to speak about the names of the assailants who assaulted him.

¶112

¶113

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶114

With regard to the appreciation of evidence of injured witness, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra¹ have given certain guidelines in paragraph 26 of the judgment. It is stated as under:

¶115

“(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

¶116

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

¶117

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

¶118

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

¶119

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or

¶120

1 AIR 2023 SC 1736

¶121

¶122

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶123

embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

¶124

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.”

¶125

On applying the said guidelines to the present

¶126

facts on hand, PW.1 being the sole injured has given the graphic account of the incident and deposed that, it is accused Nos.1 to 4 who assaulted him. There is no evidence brought on record by the accused that the evidence of PW.1 is improbable or unreliable. The circumstances elicited from the evidence of PW.1 itself establish that there was assault on the person of the complainant/PW.1 by the accused. To discredit the veracity of his evidence, there is no other evidence brought on record in the cross examination. Except the denial the accused have not raised a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution.

¶127

¶128

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶129

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶130

Ramvilas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh² have held that:

¶131

“being injured witnesses, there presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted.”

¶132

Thus, on applying the aforesaid principles with

¶133

regard to the injured witness, PW.1 being the injured has no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. He has clearly stated about the assault by the accused persons on his person. Thus, evidence of injured witness has a great weight. In a very cogent and convincing way PW.1 has spoken before the Court and his evidence cannot be discarded. Law is that deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major contradiction and discrepancies therein. Further, being injured witnesses, his presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted.

¶134

PW.1 is none other than a relative of accused persons from his paternal side. Accused persons and the complainant are residing in the same Hanagal village.

¶135

2 (2016) 16 SCC 316

¶136

¶137

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶138

Both are residing side by side. Their landed properties are situated abutting with each other as per the say of the complainant. This fact is not denied by the accused persons. Even there is no denial with regard to the dispute of user of the road by the accused persons for which the complainant has objections. For the last 3-4 years the complainant was raising objections to the accused persons not to move in his landed property. Thus the cumulative reading of all this evidence adduced by the prosecution,

¶139

clearly establish that, it is the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the complainant on that ill fitted day i.e., on 24.12.2007 at 9.30 p.m., by restraining the complainant from moving further, abusing him in filthy language, caused him grievous injuries.

¶140

The learned Trial Court has assessed the evidence and has believed the version of the prosecution. Even the first appellate Court also appreciated the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution has to be accepted. In this revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., it is settled that this

¶141

¶142

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶143

Court cannot sit as an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. When there are concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the first appellate Court and even assessing the evidence by this Court, I do not find any factual or legal error committed by the Trial Court in finding the accused persons guilty of commission of the offences.

¶144

The incident has taken place in the year 2007. That is the only mitigating circumstance as per the records. There are no infirmities or illegalities committed by the Trial Court in passing the judgment of conviction of sentence and affirmation of the same by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the Revision Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶145

Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER

¶146

(i) Revision Petition filed by the

¶147

petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 397 R/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶148

(ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.2010 passed in C.C.

¶149

¶150

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶151

No.85/2008 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gundlupet and affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5/2010 dated 18.04.2012 by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kollegal are affirmed.

¶152

(iii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 shall surrender forthwith before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gundlupet to undergo the sentence so passed in C.C.No.85/2008. However, set off is also allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., of the period already undergone by the accused Nos.1 to 4 if any during trial stage.

¶153

(iv) The order regarding disposal of M.O.

¶154

No.1 passed by the Trial Court is maintained.

¶155

(v) Intimate the final order passed in this Revision Petition forthwith to the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gundlupet, through e-mail for taking necessary steps to secure the presence of the accused persons for undergoing sentence.

¶156

¶157

Crl.R.P. No.182/2014

¶158

(vi) Transmit the Trial Court and the first

¶159

appellate Court records forthwith along with the

¶160

copy of this judgment.

¶161

Sd/JUDGE

¶162