AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 782/2006 challenging inadequacy of sentence as against accused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. respondents herein, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 779/2006 is filed challenging the acquittal of the respondents for the charges u/s 354 IPC and acquitting the respondents 4 to 8 for the charges under Sections 143, 323, 324 and 506 IPC on a trial held by the CJM, Tumkur. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under;
On 20.9.2003 at about 9.30 p.m. the respondents (the accused in the trial Court) said to have come to the house of PW1-Imthiyaz and assaulted him with the clubs. When PWs. 2 and 3 intervened, the accused assaulted them also and pushed PW3-Fathima. At that time PWs. 4 and 5 i.e. Dadajan and Akram intervened and pacified the accused. On the next day PW1 approached the police and filed a complaint, which came to be registered in Crime No. 155/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324 and 506 r/w. Section 149 IPC.
The injured were sent to the doctor. The spot mahazar Ex. P2 was held, the clubs Mos. 1 and 2 were seized in the presence of PW6 and another. The statements were recorded. The injury certificates Exs. P4 to P6 were collected. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences.
During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P6 and MOs. 1 and 2. Statement of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 506 IPC and ordered them to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 324 & 506 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. They were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence u/s 323 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the accused for the charge u/s 354 IPC and other accused for all other charges Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 779/2006, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 782/2006 is filed challenging inadequate sentence.
Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
The points that arises for my consideration are;
(i) Whether the State has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Sections 354 IPC and acquittal of the respondents 4 to 8 for the charge under Sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC?
(ii) Whether any interference could be necessary in the order of conviction and quantum of sentence passed by the trial Court?
Perusal of the records reveal that against the order of conviction, the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 782/2006 had filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2006 before the Sessions Court. The said appeal came to be allowed vide the judgment and order dated 12.4.2006. This order of the Appellate Court is not challenged by the State. So, when the said respondents were acquitted by the Sessions Court in the aforesaid appeal, the question of inadequacy of sentence does not arise for consideration. Therefore, criminal appeal No. 782/2006 has to be dismissed as not maintainable.
So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 779/2006 is concerned, the State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents for the charge u/s 354 as against all the accused and acquittal of accused Nos. 4 to 8 for the charge under Sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC. Perusal of the complaint and the evidence reveals, the main part as against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for which the trial Court had convicted them, but as, the said accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2006 aforesaid, they were acquitted of the charge. The other accused against whom there is scanty evidence cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 354 IPC or any other offences. Particularly, so far as the accusation relating to outraging the modesty of PW3-Fathima, it is stated that she was pushed by the accused at the time of the incident. This alleged act of pushing on the part of the a caused does not amount to outraging of modesty of a woman. Therefore, acquittal even for the charge u/s 354 IPC does not require any interference in this appeal. For these reasons, the State has not made out any grounds to warrant interference.
In the result appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed.