Informant appealed an acquittal in a criminal trespass, assault and criminal intimidation case. The High Court found the first appellate court's view that intention was not proved was neither perverse nor illegal, and dismissed the 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:36407 CRL.A No. 254 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2012 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. RAJESH PALANI S/O G. PALANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.5, BRIDAGE APARTMENT HABITAT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. RAJESH PALANI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT))
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL. APPEAL
NO.94/2011, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE JMFC(II COURT), MYSORE DATED 29.06.2011 IN C.C.NO.1008/2008 - CONVICTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 323, 504, 506 AND 114 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The complainant in CC.1008/2008 on the file of the learned JMFC, II Court Mysore is impugning the judgment dated 17.12.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.94/2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment dated 29.06.2011 passed by the trial Court and consequently, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (For short 'IPC').
offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 448, 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, FIR in Cr.No.93/2008 came to be registered. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2.
prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 506 of IPC; sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC with default sentences.
respondent has also not addressed his arguments. Hence, his arguments is taken as nil. Perused the materials including the trial Court records.
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to allow the appeal and to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section Sections 448, 323, 504 and 506?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
as PW1, who is the injured eye-witness. PW2 is the wife of PW1 and she is said to be the eye witness to the incident. PW3 is also said to be the eye-witness. PWs.4 and 5 are the mahazar witness. PW7 is the police constable, who accompanied the injured to the hospital. PW8 is the police constable who apprehended the accused. PW9 is the revenue inspector, who issued the demand register extract relating to the house of
PW1. PW10 is the doctor, who treated the injured-PW1. PW11 is the Investigating Officer.
the meaning that the accused were having an intention either to forcibly trespass into the house of PW1 or to cause injuries or to criminally intimidate PW1. When the intention on the part of the accused to commit the criminal offence is conspicuously missing, it cannot be said that prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
NC: 2024:KHC:36407 CRL.A No. 254 of 2012
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
BH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the informant's appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. made out grounds to reverse the acquittal and convict the accused under Sections 448, 323, 504 and 506 IPC?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M. Rajesh Palani S/o G. Palani
Sri Shylendra S/o. C. Venkataraju
Sri Thirumalesh S/o Jade Madaiah
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
