Hanumantha Reddy and Shrungesha Reddy vs State

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

Petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and have been sentenced. Accused have been sentenced for the offence u/s 323 r/w Section 34 IPC, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. They have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence u/s 324 r/w Section 34 IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Crl.A.No.41/2008 filed by the accused, in the Sessions Court at Chitradurga was dismissed on 02.12.2009. Sri. D.R. Nagaraja, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hence, petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt since the prosecution. has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that the sentence imposed on. the petitioners is harsh.

Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP, on the other hand. made submissions in support of the findings of the courts below, holding the petitioners guilty of the offences under Sections 323, 324 r/w Section 34 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 08.02.2007, accused assaulted CW.1 with iron rod and limbs and caused injuries. A complaint was lodged, case was, registered and after investigation, petitioners were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. Accused, upon appearance, pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and MOs 1 and 2. Petitioners were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial.

PW.1, who is the complainant has deposed that, on 04.02.2007, at about 4.30 p.m. when he was vending bettle leaves at Kannika Road, Chitradurga, wife of accused No.1 came and abused him and later accused 1 and 2 came to the spot, accused No.2 pulled his shirt and kicked him by his legs and that accused No.1 assaulted him from back side with an iron rod and caused bleeding injury, which was witnessed by PWs 2 and 3. PW.1 has identified the iron rod used for assaulting him as MO.2. The blood stained shirt has been identified as MO.1.

PWs 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident and have stated that, CW.1 was assaulted by the accused by use of iron rod and limbs. No doubt there are minor discrepancies in the deposition of PWs 2 and 3. The same is not of much relevance since Doctor who was examined as PW.6 has issued wound certificate Ex.P-3. At the earliest point of time, before PW.6, use of iron rod by the accused fir. assaulting ha been stated by the injured. The injury suffered has been established from Ex.P-3. Panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

Upon appreciation of evidence, the courts below have concurrently found the petitioners guilty of the offences wide.- Sections 323, 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. The findings n-.carded by the courts below are neither perverse nor illegal for being interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The finding of guilt by the courts below, having evidentiary support, is justified. However, the sentence imposed on the petitioners, in my opinion, is not justified. Keeping in view the fact that, in a spur of moment, an assault has taken place, it is a case, wherein the petitioners should have been imposed with fine with a direction to pay compensation to the victim. In the said view of the matter, the sentence imposed on the petitioners needs modification. Petitioners are sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and when realized, Rs.9,000/- be paid to the victim as compensation and Rs. I,000/- to be forfeited to the State Government. In case of default, petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Time for payment of fine is three weeks from today.

Petition is allowed in part and in the above terms.