Appeal by convicted accused No.3 challenging conviction under Sections 333 and 324 IPC for stabbing a police constable who intercepted an auto rickshaw. Court upheld identification despite no test parade and unsupported panch witnesses; noted sentence already undergone; dismissed appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA K N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 09.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-63) IN S.C.NO.1274/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 333,307 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
NC: 2024:KHC:40387 CRL.A No. 180 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the evidence and material on record.
rickshaw. The driver of the said auto rickshaw, seeing the police tried to escape by driving the said auto rickshaw in a high speed. Raising suspicion, they chased and intercepted the auto rickshaw near Muneshwari Block, 4th Cross. Accused No.1 was the driver of the said auto rickshaw and accused Nos.2 and 3 were sitting in the back
seat of the auto rickshaw. Since they failed to provide proper information, the complainant asked accused No.1 to bring the auto rickshaw to the Police Station. When the auto rickshaw reached near Charminar Hotel in Palace Guttahalli, accused No.3 assaulted PW.5 with a dagger and accused No.2 threatened him to assault with a long. They pushed accused No.3 out of the said auto rickshaw and sped away.
oral and documentary evidence on record, vide judgment dated 09.01.2023 passed in Sessions Case No.1274/2016, was pleased to acquit accused Nos.1 and 2 of the charges leveled against them and convicted accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 333 of IPC.
No.3 to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo S.I. for 20 days for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC.
PW.1 is the complainant who lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. He has reiterated the complaint averments in his evidence. In Ex.P1, it is clearly stated that one of the accused who was sitting on the backseat, assaulted the injured with a dagger.
deposed in his testimony that one of the accused who was sitting beside him in the auto rickshaw attacked him with a dagger and when he held his right hand he sustained injuries to the forearm and with same dagger the said accused inflicted injuries on his right thigh and pushed him out of the auto rickshaw. Thereafter, he was shifted to Fortis hospital by the police who were on night duty. He has further stated that on 05.05.2016 he identified the accused who inflicted injuries and pushed him from the auto rickshaw. He has identified MO.3 as the weapon which was used by accused No.3.
cannot be accepted. Both PWs.1 and 5 have spoken about the incident and have identified the appellant.
i. Clean lacerated wound on the right forearm, 6 x 1 cm on the lateral aspect and
ii. Cut wound on the lateral aspect of Thigh /Gluteal region measuring of 3 x 1 cm.
hence held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the said accused Nos.1 and 2. Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused No.3.
For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
HB/TL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether absence of a test identification parade undermines the injured witness's identification of the accused?
Whether non-support by panch witnesses to the seizure of the dagger invalidates the conviction?
Whether the trial court's conviction of the appellant under Sections 333 and 324 IPC required interference?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Shiva @ Ajith S/o. Late Mallesh
The State of Karnataka by Vyalikaval Police Station
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
