Bellegowda vs The State of Karnataka

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—This criminal revision petition is preferred u/s 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order dated 6.11.2009 in C.C. No. 277/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Gundlupet and to set-aside the order dated 12.1.2011 in Crl.A. No. 35/2009 on the file of District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar. The revision petitioners were accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the Magistrate in C.C. No. 277/2008. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., there was quarrel in the land of P.W.-2 Neelamma in respect of grazing of cattles in their land. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 with their common intention came to the house of the complainant P.W.-1 Puttamaramma and started quarrelling with the complainant as well as her daughter P.W.-2-Neelamma. Accused No. 1 Bellegowda assaulted the complainant P.W.-1 on her left hand with hind side of the chopper and thereby caused the fracture. He slapped P.W.-2 the daughter of the complainant and accused No. 2 also assaulted P.W.-2. At that time, one Raja-P.W.-3 came to the spot and pacified them and took the injured to Government hospital, where upon taking x-ray, the fracture was confirmed. P.W.-1 lodged the complaint against both the accused. On the basis of complaint, P.W.-6 Basavanna-Station House Officer registered the case, visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex-P2 seized the chopper with which accused No. 1 assaulted P.W.-2 and after recording the statement of other witnesses, charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused Bellegowda and Smt. Nagamma, W/o. Bellegowda for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused having denied the charges levelled against them, the prosecution led the evidence, examined as many as nine witnesses as P.W.-1 to P.W.-9 and marked Exs-P1 to P6 apart from M.O.1-Chopper. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the Prosecutor and the defence counsel and on appreciation of the evidence placed on record found both the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC and thereby he convicted both the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable u/s 323 of IPC and two years for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC by order dated 6.11.2009.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A. No. 35/2009 before the Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the arguments and upon appreciation of the evidence has confirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 and set-aside the order of conviction of accused No. 2. The learned Sessions Judge in modification of the sentence passed by the Magistrate has ordered accused No. 1 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC. Questioning the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, this revision petition is preferred by accused No. 1.

Upon securing the records, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

From the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it is noticed that among all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.-1 Puttamaramma and P.W.-2 Nellamma are the eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W.-2 Nellamma is none other than daughter of P.W.-1 Puttamaramma. Both of them have spoken about the incident that had taken placed on 31.10.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. When accused No. 2 wife of accused No. 1 was grazing the cattle''s in the land of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 raised objection. Accused No. 2 came alongwith her husband at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day to the house of the complainant and started quarrelling. At that time, accused No. 1 assaulted P.W.-1 Puttamaramma with the help of weapon i.e., from hind portion of the chopper and thereby she sustained injury. He also slapped P.W.-2 - daughter of P.W.-1 and accused No. 2 also assaulted P.W.-2 and at that time, one P.W.-3 Raja intervened and thereby P.W.-1 was taken to Government hospital, from where she lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1. X-ray of P.W.-1 was taken and fracture was confirmed. P.W.-2 her daughter has also given evidence in the same line as that of her mother. P.W.-3 Raja has also spoken about the incident. He has spoken that PWs-1, 2 and both the accused are his relatives. Therefore there is nothing for him to give false evidence against the accused. He went on record to depose that when he was sitting in front of his house, he saw accused No. 2 abusing P.W.-2 in filthy language and accused No. 1 assaulted P.W.-1 and caused fracture and accused No. 2 caught hold of P.W.-2 and also assaulted P.W.-2. P.W.-4- Mahesh is also an eye-witness to the incident. He has also spoken about the incident. P.W.-6 is the PSI of Gundlupet, who has spoken about the registration of the crime. P.W.-7 is the spot pancha. Thus almost all the eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Though they have been cross-examined, nothing has come out of it, so as to disbelieve their version. Ex-P4 is the wound certificate which speaks about the fracture of bones of the forearm of Puttamaramma, which is confirmed by x-ray Ex-P5. Thus the Magistrate upon appreciation of the evidence found both the accused guilty and thereby convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months to accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable u/s 326 r/w 34 of IPC. But in appeal, learned Sessions Judge upon re-appreciation of the evidence acquitted accused. No. 2 wife of accused No. 1 and convicted accused No. 1 for the offences punishable u/s 326 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Since the injury sustained by P.W.-1 is grievous injury which is confirmed by the medical certificate as well as x-ray, learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are right in convicting the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken into account other factors while awarding the sentence as against accused No. 1. In-fact the sentence is on the lower side. Thus I do not find any grounds to call for my interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner-accused No. 1 There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence, criminal revision petition is dismissed.