H.L. Manjunatha vs State and Others

P.D. Waingankar, J—This revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30.03.2007 in Cri.A. No. 58/2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court-II) at Mandya. On 10.04.1998 at about 1.30 p.m., when the petitioner-Manjunath was sleeping on the road over the bridge at Shambuganahalli, at B. Hosur village within the jurisdiction of Kergod Police Station, respondent No. 2- accused picked up quarrel with him and assaulted with hoe causing grievous injuries. He was shifted to the hospital where his brother-in-law Basavegowda came, made an enquiry with him and lodged a complaint before the Kergod Police Station. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2-accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC in C.C. No. 103/1998 on the file of CJM, Mandya. Upon trial, by judgment dated 28.05.2005, respondent No. 2-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

Questioning the legality of the order of conviction, the accused preferred Cri.A. No. 58/2005 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Mandya. Upon merits, by order dated 30.03.2007, the appeal came to be partly allowed. The conviction of the accused under Section 326 of IPC was upheld. The sentence was altered and reduced from three years imprisonment to one day and out of fine amount of Rs. 5,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had been ordered to be paid to the petitioner-the victim of the incident.

The petitioner-the victim of the incident is aggrieved by the modification of the sentence by the Sessions Judge, which made him to prefer this revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondent No. 1-Government advocate and respondent No. 2-accused.

Admittedly, the accused has not called in question the confirmation of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge. What has been questioned is the reduction of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge from three years to one day.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 326 of IPC is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also liable to pay fine. Therefore, the order of sentence reduced from three years to a day for the offence under Section 326 of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law. The records disclose that in the said incident, the petitioner/injured sustained fracture of lower 1/3rd of left humerus as could been seen from Ex. P5-wound certificate. Ex. P3 is the X-ray. Thus, from Ex. P3 and P5, it is abundantly clear that the injuries sustained by the petitioner was grievous injuries as defined under Section 320 of IPC. Moreover, the injuries was caused by the assault with hoe. Under such circumstances, there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from three years to a day. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge has ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the petitioner-the victim of the incident. Moreover, the incident had taken place way back in the year 1998 almost 17 years have elapsed since then. It appears the parties are living peacefully for these 17 years after the incident. Under such circumstances, I see no reasons to interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge at this stage when parties have forgotten the incident. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

Revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.