Appeal against conviction under Sections 323, 341 and 504 IPC for wrongfully restraining an MLA, abusing him and throwing a cement brick that injured his chest. The High Court found the eyewitness evidence reliable, held the Section 504 ingredients satisfied per Fiona Shrikhande, and upheld conviction and sentence.
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:47780 CRL.A No. 582 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 582 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
L. MAHESH S/O M.N. LEPAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS MARALENAHALLI TUMKUR TALUK.
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI T GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE TUMKUR
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.No.82/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 341 AND 504 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(i) on 30.06.2011, at about 2.45 pm., in front of OIC Petrol Bunk, Lingapura on the service road of N.H-4, on account of the previous ill-will, with an intent to cause
death of PW1 – Sri.S.Shivanna, sitting M.L.A, the appellant
– accused wrongfully restrained him while he was traveling
in his car bearing registration No.KA-06-M-9132, intentionally insulted him in filthy language, with an intention to cause his death assaulted him with a cement brick. Charge sheet has been filed against the appellant – accused for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 307 of IPC. The case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge against the appellant – accused for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 307 of IPC.
(ii) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and material objects as MOs.1 and 2. The statement of the appellant – accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant – accused for
the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC and held that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not proved against the appellant – accused. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged in this appeal.
(i) PW1, in his cross examination has admitted that
the contents of the complaint has been written by one Sri.Murthy, who is his friend and the same has been sent through one Sri.Umesh. PW1 – Investigating Officer has received the complaint given by said Sri.Umesh and registered a case against the appellant – accused. Said Sri.Umesh and Sri.Murthy were not examined. PW2 who is said to be one of the eye witness to the incident has
stated in his evidence that stone was thrown by the appellant – accused to the front side of the car and it got damaged, but PW1 in his evidence has stated that cement brick hit by the appellant – accused has damaged the driver side door glass. Therefore, there is a contradiction in that regard.
(ii) He further contends that PW2 stated to have travelling in the Autorickshaw and got down from the Autorickshaw only after the incident and he stated to have intimated the same to the police and he has also stated that the police recorded his statement. The said statement of PW2 amounts to first information and that is suppressed. The presence of PWs.2 to 4 who were said to be the eye witnesses on the spot is doubtful. PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he left the office at 2.00 pm., and the incident had taken place at 2.45 pm.,
and from his office to the spot, he has to cover distance of 3 to 4 kms and it can be covered within 15 minutes pre-supposes that the alleged incident might have taken
place between 2.00 – 2.45 pm. He further submits that PWs.2 to 4 are the followers of PW1 who was sitting M.L.A at the time of incident.
(iii) He further submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident and those contradictions are material contradictions. He further submits that considering the evidence of PW1, the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC has not made out. There is no intentional insult. Therefore, the offence under Section 504 of IPC is not attracted. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs.State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2013 (5) KCCR SN 561 (SC). He also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanna Piddappa and others Vs. the State, held in Crl.A.No.3529/2009 decided on 06.03.2013. He also placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Sunita @ Sugna Vs. State
decided on 24.01.2024. On the above grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant – accused.
PW1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 – eye witnesses will prove the offences alleged against the appellant – accused. The wound certificate – Ex.P4 prove that PW1 has sustained simple injury on his chest. The cement brick and the glass piece were found in the car of PW1 and they were seized under mahazar – Ex.P3. The spot mahazar – Ex.P2 has been proved by the evidence of PW6. The Trial Court, considering the evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellant – accused for the offences alleged against him. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusal of
the impugned judgment and the Trial Court records, the following point arises for my consideration;
“Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant – accused for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of IPC?”
PW1 is the complainant and the injured and he has filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. The said complaint Ex.P1 has been sent by PW1 through one Sri.Umesh to the police station. PW1 has stated that due to the incident, he was not in a position to go to the police station, therefore, he has sent Sri.Umesh to the police station. PW10 – A.S.I has received the said complaint sent by PW1 through Sri.Umesh. PW10 has stated that on 30.06.2011 he was in the police station and at that time, one Sri.Umesh came and gave a written complaint and he has registered the same in Crime No.215/2011. On perusal of Ex.P1 –
complaint, there is an endorsement to the effect that it is produced by one Sri.Umesh before PW10 on 30.06.2011 at 6.15 pm. There is an explanation by PW1 for he sending his complaint – Ex.P1 through Sri.Umesh that, as he had sustained injuries, he was not able to go to the police station. Therefore, nothing fault can be found with the said aspect of PW1 sending his written complaint signed by him through Sri.Umesh to the police station.
holding, to the window glass of the car and the glass broke down and the said cement stone hit on his chest and he sustained injury. The said evidence of PW1 has been
corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are eye witnesses to the incident. PWs.2 to 4 have also stated in their evidence about the appellant – accused throwing the cement brick to the car of PW1 and breaking the said car glass and causing injury on the chest of PW1. PW2 has stated that the said cement brick has hit the front glass of the car and there is a contradiction to the evidence of PW1. PWs.3 and 4 have stated that the cement brick thrown by the appellant – accused has damaged right side front door glass. Therefore, the contradiction in the evidence of PW2 is not the material contradiction in view of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4.
at about 2.15 pm. As per the evidence of PW1, the incident had taken place on 2.45 pm. PW1 has stated that he was going slowly at 10 Kms/per/hour speed. Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said that he reached the spot at 2.15 pm. The said aspect is not the material aspect to disbelieve the evidence of PW1.
ªÀÄÄV¹©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£ï” JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£ÀߣÀÄß “ªÀÄÄV¹©qÀÄvÉÛãÉ, PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÉÛÃ£É “¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÔ JAzÀÄ UÀnÖAiÀiÁV ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåvÀÛ¯Éà ¤A¢¸ÀÄvÀÛ¯Éà vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄAn£À PÀ°è¤AzÀ £À£Àß §®¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ¨ÁV°£À°èzÀÝ QlQAiÀÄ UÁfUÉ §®ªÁV PÀ°è¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ£ÀÄ.”
“ Held: Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz.,(a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person 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 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 the 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 the offence 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.”
NC: 2024:KHC:47780 CRL.A No. 582 of 2013
made out any grounds for setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence. In the result, the
following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 323, 341 and 504 IPC for assaulting and abusing the complainant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and AnotherRelied on¶12
2013 (5) KCCR SN 561 (SC)
Sanna Piddappa and others Vs. the StateReferred
Crl.A.No.3529/2009
3 provisions across 1 enactments
L. Mahesh
State of Karnataka
Shivashankar Amaranannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
