Allowed

M C Dinesha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2024CRL.RP/866/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction of two accused for voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation after a sickle dispute. Revision court found material contradictions between complaint, eyewitness evidence and medical certificates regarding the fracture injury side and the weapons used, creating doubt about the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; judgments of trial and appellate courts set aside; petitioners acquitted of Sections 341, 326 and 506 r/w 34 IPC; bail bonds cancelled.

M C Dinesha Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 866 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M C DINESHA S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 32 YEARS R/O MUDODI, HARAVARI VILLAGE AND POST N R PURA TALUK

¶10

CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 134.

¶11

RANJITHA S/O LATE LOKESHACHARI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O MENASUKODIGE B KANABURU VILLAGE AND POST N R PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 134.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. V D RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALEHONNUR POLICE, N R PURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 05.03.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., N.R.PURA IN C.C.NO.504/2014 AND SAME BEING CONFIRMED/UPHELD BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR IN CRL.A.NO.47/2018 DATED 17.06.2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 326, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2018 in C.C.No.504/2014 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura, wherein the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 341, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). On appeal being filed, the Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 17.06.2021 in Crl.A No.47/2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru allowed the appeal in part and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC and confirmed judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶25

The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth, will

¶26

be considered for convenience.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶29

Brief facts of the case:

¶30

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have been running the furnace wherein they were doing sharpening of weapons used for cultivation. The complainant said to have given the sickles for sharpening. When the complainant went to the shop of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and asked about the sickles, the accused gave evasive answer and asked the complainant to come on another day. The complainant being enraged by the answer of which the accused Nos.1 and 2 had warned them and went away.

¶31

The complainant and PW.4 were proceeding on motorcycle on 07.03.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. When they reached Bandihole Village, Balehonnur, near Sripathikhan Estate gate, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, came on their motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-U-6810, restrained the movement of PWs.1 and 4 and started quarreling with them by abusing in a filthy language. Further, accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted PW.1 with a sickle on vital parts of the body, consequently, PW.1 has sustained fractured injury and PW.4 also sustained injuries. PW.5 was proceeding in

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶34

his auto in the said direction and he was asked to shift the injured to the hospital for treatment. PW.1 while he was taking treatment in the hospital, gave his statement before the police. Based on the statement, the jurisdictional police have registered the case in Crime No.26/2014 for the above said offences and after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶35

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14 and also identified two material objects as M.Os.1 and 2. The Trial Court after appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction of the accused / petitioners herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

¶36

Heard Sri.V.D.Raviraj, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶39

It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to consider the evidence on record properly and passed the impugned judgments which appear to be erroneous and illegal and the same are liable to be set aside.

¶40

It is further submitted that even though the Trial Court recorded the finding that PW.1 had sustained fracture injury, however, the Trial Court did not consider non-production of X-ray which is sine qua non to indicate the said fracture injury. In the absence of documentary evidence regarding fracture, mere oral evidence of the Doctor should not have been considered. The findings of the Trial Court in respect of the offence under Section 326 of IPC is against the law laid down by this Court.

¶41

It is further submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 who are the material witnesses to the incident appears to be interested and the petitioners herein have been implicated in the false case by taking the previous quarrel that had taken place between the petitioners and the complainant. It is further submitted that in addition to some contradictions and omissions, the Trial Court has

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶44

failed to consider the evidence of PW.5 properly, as a result of which, the impugned judgments are passed which are required to be set aside. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶45

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State vehemently justified the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and submitted that the evidence of PW.1, who is the injured witness of the case, is relevant and there is no occasion for the Court to disbelieve his evidence. Similarly, PW.4 who accompanied PW.1 has supported the case of the prosecution. The Doctor who examined PW.1 has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P11. As per the said wound certificate, there are eight injuries caused to PW.1. Apart from that, injury No.8 is grievous in nature. PW.8 who was working as a Doctor in General Hospital, Koppa said to have subjected PW.1 for X-ray especially the right hand of the complainant / PW.1. However, he has not produced the said X-ray. The prosecution has produced a treatment extract which is

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶48

marked as Ex.P12 which is relevant to the case on hand.

¶49

The evidence of PWs.1, 4, 7 and 8 are relevant. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court recorded the conviction based on not only the oral evidence but also the documentary evidence produced and marked in this case, therefore, the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court do not contain any irregularity or illegality. Hence, interference with the said findings by exercising Revisional jurisdiction may not be warranted. Making such submission, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶50

After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on which conviction has been recorded, it is necessary to refer the evidence of PWs.1, 4, 7 and 8 by way of cursory look in order to ascertain as to whether any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in recording the evidence of these witnesses or whether both the Courts failed to apply the principle of law in this case.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶53

Before adverting to the evidence in detail, it is necessary

¶54

to advert to the facts of the case in brief. On 07.03.2014 around 5.00 p.m., when PW.1 and PW.4 were proceeding on the bike near Sripathikhan Estate on N.R.Pura – Balehonnur Main Road, the accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came on their motorcycle bearing No.KA-18/U-6810, restrained PW.1 and started quarreling with PW.1 regarding the earlier quarrel said to have taken place for sharpening the sickle and assaulted with the clubs on head and left hand of PW.1. Consequently, PW.1 sustained fractured injury. Accused No.2 said to have assaulted with stone on the back of PW.1 and caused injuries. In addition to that, when PW.4 tried to rescue PW.1, he was also assaulted by accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶55

On reading of the evidence of PW.1, he stated in his evidence that he had given the sickle for sharpening to accused No.1. When PW.1 asked to return his sickle, the accused No.1 insulted PW.1 and there was an altercation between them. The said incident had taken place prior to the present incident. According to PW.1, he was assaulted by accused Nos.1 and 2 with club and stone.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶58

He stated to have obtained the treatment at Government Hospital, Balehonnur, thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, N.R.Pura.

¶59

The evidence of PW.1 though appears to be believable, it is necessary to go through the wound certificate which is relevant to the case on hand. The prosecution has produced the treatment extract which is marked as Ex.P12 stated to be that of PW.1. As per the said treatment extract, PW.1 has suffered an injury to the right forearm as a result of fracture shaft of ulna right side. One more wound certificate which is produced and marked as Ex.P11 indicates that there are eight injuries caused all over the body of PW.1. As per the averments of the complaint, the accused No.1 had assaulted PW.1 on the head with wooden club and another accused assaulted on the back of PW.1 with stone. There is a contradiction as per the averments of the complaint and evidence of PW.1 in respect of fracture injury. The said inconsistency has not been noticed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶62

As per Ex.P1, PW.1 sustained fracture injury to his left hand. However, Ex.P11 wound certificate indicate the injury No.8 i.e., the fracture injury caused to the shaft of right ulna. After seeing the said Exhibits, it appears that the opinion of the Doctor is contrary to the averments of Ex.P1. This is considered as material contradiction in respect of fracture injury and it will go to the root of the case of the prosecution.

¶63

The Doctor who examined PW.1, has been examined as PW.7. According to him, there are eight injuries caused to PW.1. The injury No.8 has been considered as grievous injury. PW.8, another Doctor who took X-ray on the wound stated that there is a fracture on the right hand. However, he has not produced the X-ray to substantiate the fracture injury.

¶64

The evidence of PW.1 and another eyewitness who is examined as PW.4 appears to be contradictory regarding the incident. As per the evidence of PW.1, accused No.2 assaulted with stone on his back, however, PW.4 states in his evidence that the accused No.2 assaulted with stone on the head of PW.1. According to PW.4, except himself

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶67

and PW.1, no other persons were present at the time of committing the alleged assault.

¶68

The spot mahazar which is marked as Ex.P2 disclosed that the Investigating Officer has seized 3 feet length two wooden clubs and one stone. However, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 indicate that the accused No.1 assaulted with wooden club and accused No.2 assaulted with stone. This inconsistency in seizing two wooden clubs creates doubt regarding the incident.

¶69

On overall reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident is not consistent with each other in respect of the overt act of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Further, their evidence is not having clarity in respect of the fracture injury alleged to have caused to PW.1. According to them, the fracture injury caused to the left hand, however, the medical certificates which are issued by PW.7 and PW.8 would indicate that the fracture injury caused to the right hand of PW.1.

¶70

After having considered the inconsistency in respect of fracture injury and the overt act of accused Nos.1 and 2, it creates doubt regarding the incident. The Trial Court

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:7645 CRL.RP No. 866 of 2021

¶73

and the Appellate Court should have scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses properly while analyzing it. Having failed to consider it properly, resulted in passing the impugned judgments which are required to be set aside.

¶74

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶77

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2018 passed in C.C.No.504/2014 by Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura and the judgment and order dated 17.06.2021 passed in Crl.A No.47/2018 by Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru are set aside.

¶78

(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶79

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

SNC/UN

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

M C Dinesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M C Dinesha v. 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

Sri M R Ramakrishna Murthy Vs Sri P Narasimhamurthy

Sri Dinesh Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shabir Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Shivaprakash, Vs Sri Prakash Rao

Smt. Vasanthi, Vs the State

Mr K T Francis Vs Sri B G Keshava Reddy