Partly allowed

Rahil Adi v. State by Ashok Nagar Police

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024CRL.A/141/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 333 IPC for assaulting a police constable at a traffic police station. The court found the grievous-injury opinion unsupported since the X-ray film was not produced, altered the conviction to Section 332 IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with enhanced fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under S.333 IPC set aside; convicted under S.332 IPC; sentenced to period already undergone plus Rs.10,000/- fine, default two months SI.

Rahil Adi Vs State by Ashok Nagar Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAHIL ADI, S/O SARAPATH ALI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.320, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. GOWTHAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L. SUDHARSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560 009

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶14

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 18.01.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-9, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.494/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 333 OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 333 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

The judgment and order dated 18.1.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-IX Bengaluru City in S.C.No.494/2012, convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC is assailed in this appeal.

¶21

Heard and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶22

3. Brief facts of the case :

¶23

On 6/7.8.2010 during night hours, PW.4-PSI of

¶24

Ashoka Nagar Traffic Police Station, PW.3-police constable and other police personnel were on duty near Bengaluru

¶25

Central Mall, Residency Road, Bengaluru. At about 12.00 in the midnight, they stopped a Motorcycle bearing No.KA.05 EE.5877. The rider of the said Motorcycle was under intoxication and therefore, the police sent the motorcycle through PW.3-police constable to Ashoka Nagar Traffic Police Station. In the meanwhile PW.2-ASI came to the police station at about 01.20 a.m. on his

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶27

departmental Motorcycle no.KA.01 G.1040 and parked the said Motorcycle in front of the police station. Accused came to the police station intending to get his Motorcycle released. The head constable-PW.1 who was on night duty told him to show the documents of the Motorcycle and also to pay the fine amount. At that time, the accused by sitting on the Motorcycle started to smoke cigarette and misbehave with PW.1. When he was told not to do so, accused took up quarrel with PW.1, held his neck collar, abused him in indecent words and pushed him on the steps and voluntarily caused grievous hurt.

¶28

Accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 333 and 504 of IPC. The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses and got marked 4 documents before the Trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. However, found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶30

Accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months.

¶31

The injured/complainant is examined as PW.1. The compliant is marked as Ex.P.1. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed in consonance with the complaint averments. In Ex.P.1, it is stated that the complainant was admitted to

¶32

Hosmat hospital wherein, the doctor after examining informed him that he has suffered a fracture in his hand.

¶33

PW.4-PSI has deposed about issuing notice as per Ex.P.3 for drunk and drive. PW.5 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P.2 and PW.6 is the PSI who recorded the statement of PW.1 from the hospital which is marked as Ex.P.1. PW.7 is the doctor who treated the injured and issued wound certificate marked as Ex.P.4.

¶34

From the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, prosecution has established that on the night of 7.8.2010, the Motorcycle

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶36

bearing registration No.KA.03-G.1040 was brought to the police station, as the rider was riding the said motorcycle under intoxication. The accused intending to get the motorcycle released came to the police station. When he was found smoking in the police station premises, PW.1 told him not to do so and at that time, accused prevented PW.1 from discharging his duty and pushed him, on account of which PW.1 fell on the ground and sustained injuries.

¶37

The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under section 504 of IPC. While convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that, the accused has not only caught hold of the complainant with collars, but also pushed him on the steps and inflicted grievous injuries to him.

¶38

The prosecution is relying on the medical evidence to establish that, PW.1 sustained grievous injuries.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶40

According to the prosecution, PW.1 was immediately shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru and he was examined by PW.7. In his evidence PW.7 has stated that on 7.8.2010 while he was on night duty, the injured was brought to the hospital for treatment with a history of assault. The injury was inflicted at 1.45 a.m. and he was brought to the hospital at 2.00 a.m. He noticed fracture of distal end of right radius without displacement. He has opined that the said injury was grievous in nature.

¶41

In the complaint marked as Ex.P.1, it is stated that the doctor after examining informed the injured that he has sustained fracture. In the cross examination, PW.7 has stated that he has taken X-ray of right hand, but the X-ray number is not mentioned in the wound certificate. Initially case was registered under Section 332 and 504 of IPC. As per wound certificate-Ex.P.4 issued by PW.7, PW.1 sustained fracture of distal end of right radius without displacement. The opinion furnished by the doctor is on the basis of X-ray, wherein according to the

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶43

prosecution, PW.1 sustained a fracture. Admittedly, PW.7 in the cross examination has mentioned that he has not mentioned the X-ray number in the wound certificate. The X-ray film is also not produced and marked by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt by adducing convincing evidence that the injury sustained by PW.1 was a grievous injury. Hence, the findings recorded by the Trial Court for convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 333 IPC cannot be sustained. However, there is sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the accused has deterred PW.1, a public servant, from discharging his duty and voluntarily caused hurt to him by pushing him on the ground. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 332 of IPC.

¶44

The incident is of the year 2010. 14 years have lapsed. Accused was aged about 21 years at the time of incident. It is submitted that he was a student. There is no bad antecedent against him. Learned High Court

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37509 CRL.A No. 141 of 2013

¶46

Government Pleader submits that accused was in custody for 13 days from 7.8.2010 to 19.8.2010. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused can be modified, by enhancing the fine amount. Accordingly, the following :

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Appeal is partly allowed ;

¶49

ii) Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer FTC-IX, Bengaluru City, convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 333 is set aside;

¶50

iii) Accused is convicted for the offence under Section 332 of IPC.

¶51

iv) He is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶52

v) He shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo S.I. for a period of two months.

¶53

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶54

Rahil Adi v. State by Ashok Nagar Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahil Adi v. State by Ashok Nagar 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

Varale Saroja @ Saroja Vs the State of Karnataka

Ranganath Bharadwaj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ashoka. K. a. Vs State of Karnataka by

Mmawulu Uduaka Don @ Chibuike @ Azubuike Vs by Vishveshwarapuram P S

M R Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka