Partly allowed

Mammunhi @ Mohammed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024CRL.RP/351/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part, set aside the order of simple imprisonment, and modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 325, and 504, citing pending civil disputes and the incident's age.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment set aside; accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 each for all offences; difference amount to be deposited within two months or original sentence revived.

Mammunhi @ Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10051 CRL.RP No. 351 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 351 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAMMUNHI @ MOHAMMED S/O LATE ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KALAMBI HOUSE, KODIPPADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574201.

¶8

HAMZA S/O LATE ISMAIL

¶9

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT KALAMBI HOUSE, KODIPPADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574201.

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

IBRAHIM S/O LATE ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT KALAMBI HOUSE, KODIPPADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574201.

¶12

SULAIMAN

¶13

S/O LATE ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KALAMBI HOUSE, KODIPPADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K-574201.

¶14

ABUBAKKER S/O LATE ISMAIL

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:10051 CRL.RP No. 351 of 2015

¶17

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT KALAMBI HOUSE, KODIPPADI VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K-574201.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 10.02.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PUTTUR, D.K., IN C.C.NO.65/2004 AND ORDER DATED 19.3.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. IN CRL.A.NO.54/2012 AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners who are convicted for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 324 of IPC are before this Court.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, on 21.4.2003 at about 9.15 a.m. in a place called Kalambi of Kodippady village, Puttur Taluk, in furtherance of their common object, the accused unlawfully assembled to commit rioting armed with deadly weapons. Out of them, accused No.1 by holding axe, accused No.2 holding sickle wrongfully restrained CWs.2 and 3 who were coming to the land of CW.1 for cutting grass, and

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10051 CRL.RP No. 351 of 2015

¶30

abused them in a filthy language, and accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 on his left leg with axe and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.2 hit on left thigh with a sickle and caused grievous injuries. Accused Nos. 3 to 5 assaulted CWs 1 to 3 with stones due to which they sustained simple injuries on the forehead, both arms and back.

¶31

The Prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.10(A) and marked material object at MO.1 to M.O.7.

¶32

The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts, however, acquitted accused Nos.6 to 10 of the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC. The judgment of conviction of accused Nos.1 to 5 was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶34

Injured witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3, and in their examination-in-chief they have categorically stated that they sustained injuries due to the assault made by the accused Nos. 1 to 5, and to substantiate the same, wound certificates were produced, and the doctor who treated the injured witnesses was examined, and nothing was elucidated in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement.

¶35

The prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt established that the accused with common object of assaulting the injured witnesses formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted them.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:10051 CRL.RP No. 351 of 2015

¶38

Admittedly, the accused herein and the injured witnesses are relatives, and the civil cases are pending between them with regard to the property dispute. The offences for which the accused are convicted are non-cognizable offence, and punished with imprisonment or with fine or both.

¶39

Having regard to the fact that there are disputes pending between the accused and the incident had occurred in 2003, and the long passage of time, it would suffice, if the sentence imposed on the accused is modified by enhancing the fine amount, and setting aside the order sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment.

¶40

10. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

¶43

ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. in C.C.No.65/2014 is modified, the conviction of the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 325, 504 of IPC is confirmed and order of sentence is modified as follows:

¶44

iii) The order of sentence to undergo imprisonment as enumerated in the order is set aside and the accused are sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each for all the offences.

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10051 CRL.RP No. 351 of 2015

¶46

iv) The difference amount of fine to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order, failing which, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court stands revived.

¶47

v) Cost to be deposited to be defrayed to the Court.

¶48

vi) Consequently, the order passed by the 5^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, sitting at Puttur in Crl.A. No.54/2012 stands modified.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Mammunhi @ Mohammed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammunhi @ Mohammed v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt Thimmakka Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Sridhar Rao Vs P. Vasudeva Acharya

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Vs M/S Aavanti Solar Energy Private Limited

Nagabhushan S P Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Prabhakar Shetty Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company (Mescom)

Amtur Raphe Vs State of Karnataka