Partly allowed

Prashanth Kumar v. State by Electronic City Police

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2024CRL.RP/937/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 341, 325 IPC set aside by appellate court which confirmed Section 323 conviction. Court reduced sentence to fine only of Rs.1,000 with Rs.2,500 paid as compensation to injured complainant.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to fine of Rs.1,000; Rs.2,500 from deposited Rs.3,500 ordered paid as compensation to PW1 under Section 357 CrPC

Prashanth Kumar Vs State by Electronic City Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.937 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O. G. LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2880, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, DEVARACHIKKANANHALLI CROSS, BEGUR, BANGALORE -560 068.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJU C N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE, PIN CODE-560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.2411/2010 DATED 29.10.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CJM, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.70/2011 DATED 20.05.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. S.J., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETR., AND ACQUIT THE PETR., BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The criminal revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in CC.No.2411/2010 dated 29.10.2011 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), which is confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.70/2011 dated 20.05.2016.

¶21

The rank of the parties in this petition are referred

¶22

to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶23

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

¶24

On 07.10.2009 at about 10.30 a.m. in front of house of

¶25

PW1 at Vishwa Priya layout, Begur Hobli, Bangalore, when the complainant was proceeding in a motor cycle to printing press, the accused wrongfully restrained the CW1-Sendil Kumar and slapped on his cheeks with hands and also assaulted on his chest, face and to his ribs and assaulted on his testicles by kicking him with legs thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶28

After filing charge sheet the case was registered in CC.No.2411/2010. In response to summons accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. Charges framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences, same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, having understood the same the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶29

To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined 05 witnesses as PW1 to PW5, 06 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On closure of prosecution side evidence statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution side witnesses but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. During the course of cross-examination of PW3 no material object is marked on behalf of prosecution side evidence.

¶30

Having heard the arguments on both sides the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶33

with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused has paid the fine amount of Rs.3,500/- on 05.12.2011.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the accused has preferred this appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.70/2011. The appeal was partly allowed and the judgment of trial Court convicting the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 325 of IPC and sentencing him for the said offence was set-aside and judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of Section 323 of IPC was confirmed. Out of the fine amount Rs.3,500/- is

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶36

deposited by the accused in the trial Court, a sum of Rs.2,500/shall be refunded to the accused and out of the remaining fine amount of Rs.1,000/- a sum of Rs.500/- shall be paid as compensation to PW1, after expiry of period to prefer revision against the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by this judgment which is modified by the appellate Court, the revision petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted his arguments that the appellate Court has convicted the accused only for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and the accused has already paid the fine amount of Rs.3,500/-. The learned counsel sought for modification of sentence only to the extent of fine amount.

¶38

As against this learned HCGP Sri. M.R.Patil has submitted his arguments that the sentence passed by the appellate Court is in accordance with law and facts. That there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and also the sentence passed by the

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶40

appellate Court and sought for dismissal of this revision petition.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶42

and on perusal of records, the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶43

Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to

¶44

reduce the sentence passed in respect of offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code?

¶45

What Order?

¶46

My answer to the above point is as under:

¶47

Point No.1: in the affirmative;

¶48

Point No.2: as per final order.

¶49

Regarding Point No.1:

¶50

I have carefully examined the material placed

¶51

before this Court. The trial Court has convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 341, 323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-accused by setting aside the judgment of

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶54

conviction and order of sentence passed in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Court has also passed the order to return the fine amount of Rs.2,500/- paid by the accused as he has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. The alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure is punishable with imprisonment of one year

¶55

or fine of Rs.1,000/- or both. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that sentence be modified only to the extent of fine amount. The fine amount has already been paid by the accused. On perusal of entire material placed on record, this Court has noticed that the accused is not convicted previously for any offence prior to the commission of alleged offence. Considering the gravity of offence, age and occupation of the accused, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶57

Regarding Point No.2:

¶58

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

Revision Petition is partly allowed;

¶61

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence

¶62

dated 29^th October, 2014 passed in CC. No.2411 of 2010 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 20^th May, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is modified as under:

¶63

(i) The accused/revision petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- only;

¶64

(ii) The accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the injured PW1;

¶65

(iii) Accused has already deposited an amount of Rs.3,500/-. Out of this

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:978 CRL.RP No. 937 of 2016

¶67

amount, the trial Court is directed to forfeit an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards fine amount for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court is directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- to the PW1 as compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure;

¶68

Send the copy of the order along with trial Court

¶69

records to the trial Court.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

PK,LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Prashanth Kumar v. State by Electronic City Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanth Kumar v. State by Electronic City Police

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 S Chandrashekhar Vs M/S Tapasi L M Chits (Pvt) Ltd.

Sri S v Venkataronappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Yallaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sathish Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bheeme Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mallesha Vs State by Halebeedu Police