Mr. Vaman Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.214/2015 DATED 22.09.2016 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 12.08.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALORE IN C.C.NO.539/2011 AND TO ACQIT THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 326 OF IPC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12.08.2015 in C.C.No.539/2011 on the file of 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Mangaluru, D.K and its confirmation judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 in Crl.A.No.214/2015 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

¶23

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court for convenience.

¶24

Brief facts of the case:

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.07.2011 at about 11.00 p.m at Madhya Village, Surathkal, the accused said to have quarreled with Smt.Nalinakshi in respect of distribution of marriage invitation card and assaulted her with his legs. Smt.Nalinakshi sustained

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶27

pain and she was taken to hospital for treatment. At that time, the accused again quarreled with Charan Kumar, scolded him in a filthy language and assaulted him with the knife on the right side of the chest and also right side of the abdomen. Consequently, the said Charan Kumar sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Padmavathi Hospital, Surathkal and later, he was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru and he has taken treatment as inpatient. The respondent police after recording the statement of PW.2 – Dejappa Poojary lodged a complaint and FIR was registered in Crime No.147/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 506 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶28

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and also identified four material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and acquitted him for the

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶31

offences under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶32

Heard Sri.Jeevan.K, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶33

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the Trial Court recorded the conviction against the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, there is no ingredients to attract the above said provision. Therefore, the conviction ought not to have been recorded. Moreover, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses properly and consequently, the impugned judgments are passed, which are liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶38

in recording the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, it is relevant to refer the provision under Section 320 of IPC, which reads as under:

¶39

“320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:— First.—Emasculation. Secondly.—Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.—Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly.—Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.—Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.—Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.—Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.—Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”

¶40

On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes it

¶41

clear that the ingredients of Section 320 of IPC has to be proved to record the conviction under Section 326 of IPC.

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶44

No doubt, the incident has taken place between the parties. The evidence of PW.1 would indicate that he was working as an auto driver. He says that PW.3 was the wife of PW.2. It is further stated that PW.3 had not distributed the invitation cards to the wife of the accused and she was not invited for the marriage, therefore, there was a quarrel between the wife of the accused and PW.3. The accused assaulted PW.3 with his legs and made her to fall on the ground. PW.2 stated to have requested PW.1 to go to hospital in his auto by taking PW.3. In the meantime, the accused assaulted PW.1 with knife on the left side of the chest and caused injuries. PW.1 was taken to hospital for treatment. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor.

¶45

PW.7 was a Doctor stated to have treated PW.1 on 10.07.2011 at about 12.45 a.m. He had noticed two injuries on the body of PW.1 and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P7. According to him, the injuries sustained to PW.1 are grievous in nature.

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶47

On conjoint reading of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.7, it appears that it is true that the incident had taken place between the accused and PW.1 and it also shows that PW.7 had treated PW.1. However, whether the said injury would come within the definition of Section 320 of IPC has to be looked into.

¶48

On perusal of the wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.P7, the ingredients of the above said provision and its explanations strictly do not attract. In other words, the prosecution has not proved the case in respect of the offence under Section 326 of IPC. When the prosecution fails to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 320 of IPC, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC, which is the penal provision does not gets attracted. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts have committed an error in rendering the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, which are liable to be set aside.

¶49

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

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12181 CRL.RP No. 1506 of 2016

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶53

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.539/2011 by the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Mangaluru, D.K and the judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.214/2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru are set aside.

¶54

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶57

UN

¶58

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3

Mr. Vaman v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vaman v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil S/O Maruti Kuntenor Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangesh @ Mangya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruthi G Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunil Vs State by Hullahalli Police Station

Prakash S/O Kashappa Hulkeri Vs the State of Karnataka