Dayananda vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure

The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC.

The facts reveal that on 19-12-2006 at about 8.00 P.M. when PWs.1 to 3 were in front of the KSRTC Bus Stand talking to each other, the petitioner who is the accused before the Trial Court picked up a quarrel and caused assault by means of a blade on the left cheek of PW. 1, who sustained simple injury and he was threatened danger to the life. PW. 1 went to the Hospital for treatment and then filed complaint Ex.P.1.

During the investigation, the spot mahazar Ex.P.2 was held and MOs. 1 and 2 (the blade and the T shirt) were seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The injury certificate Ex.P.4 was collected. A Chargesheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked the documents Exs. P. 1 to P.4 and MOs.1 and 2. The statement of the petitioner was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has not led any defense evidence. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 IPC and ordered imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.87/2007 which came to be dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader.

Though the incident took place in the night at 8.00 p.m. it is relevant to note that the said incident has taken place in front of the Bus Stand. PW.1 is the injured, who is said to have been sustained injury due to an assault by the petitioner with blade and PWs.2 and 3 were his friends and at the time of the incident, they were with PW.1. The injury certificate has been produced at Ex.P.4 and to prove the said document, the prosecution has examined PW.5 Dr. Shanthala who has stated in her evidence that the injury suffered by PW.1 could be caused by use of a blade MO.1. Though the learned counsel contended that the blade could cause only an incised wound, the Doctor PW.5 has stated that it could cause the injuries suffered by PW.1. It is relevant to note that it depends upon the way in which the blade is used in causing the injury. PW. 1 is the injured witness and acquainted with the petitioner (the accused) and therefore, there is no question of disputing the identity as the said incident took place in front of the bus stand. PWs.2 and 3 consistently state about the assault caused by the petitioner and as could be seen from the cross examination of PWs. 1 to 3, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of these witnesses.

It is well established principle of law that an injured generally does not implicate an innocent and does not leave the person who has really caused the harm. In this context, if the evidence of these witnesses and the documents are perused, the prosecution has proved the guilt u/s 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner has not made out any such glaring error or inherent defect in the proceedings before the Trial Court. Even otherwise, this is a revision petition and the scope is limited. This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence except for any glaring error or inherent defect in the proceedings.

So far as the offence u/s 506 IPC is concerned, as could he seen from the allegations in the complaint, there is no such material to establish that a threat of danger to the life was given by the petitioner either to PW. 1 or any other witnesses. In the absence of any such material, the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal for the offence u/s 506 IPC.

So far as the sentence for the offence u/s 324 IPC is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the benefit of probation may be extended. But looking to the nature of assault, without any severe motive, I do not think that it is proper to extend the benefit of probation. The petitioner is a student and was aged about 23 years at the time of the incident. In case, if he is confined to custody, such a sentence would mar his career. But at the same time, an extreme lenient view cannot be taken. In the circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed in part, affirming the conviction of the petitioner (the accused) for the offence u/s 324 IPC. His conviction for the offence u/s 506 IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. The sentence ordered for the offence u/s 324 IPC is modified. The petitioner (the accused) is ordered to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the Court and be is ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On deposit of the compensation amount, the same shall be paid to PW.1, the injured. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused to undergo the sentence ordered.