AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B.Adi
This appeal is by the accused against the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable u/s 324 read with 34 of IPC.
2, The case of the prosecution is that the accused Nos.1 and 3 and accused Nos.2 and 4 are the brothers. PWs-1 to 3 are also brothers and PW-4 is the mother of PW1 to PW-3. All these accused and prosecution witnesses PWs-1 to 4 are residents of Tharikbyalu village in Hassan District. The father of accused Nos.1 and 3 was murdered. In the said murder case, PWs-1 to 3 and their father were the accused. PWs-1 to 3 were on bail, on one of the condition that they would mark their attendance before Yesalur police station once in a week. On 19.11.1999. for the first time. PWs-1 to 3 had gone to the police station to mark their attendance. After marking their attendance, they were returning to village at about 5 p.m. When they reached the coffee estate of C.C. Farm House at Tharikbyalu village, accused Nos.1 to 4 came at once and assaulted PWs-1 to 3. Accused Nos.1 and 4 assaulted with the chopper and accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted with culbs. When PWs-1 to 3 screamed for help, PWs-4, 6 and 8 came to the spot.
PW-4 took the injured to the hospital. PW-1 after taking treatment, went to the police station and gave a statement. PW.-10 ASI of Yesalur police registered the case. PWs-2 and 3 who were injured were sent to Sakleshpur hospital where PW-7 treated them and issued wound certificate as per Exs.P9 to P11 PW-10 went to the spot, seized the material object, collected the blood stained mud and sample mud and recorded the statement of witnesses, after completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet.
Accused were tried for an offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
The prosecution, in order to prove the charges had examined PWs-1 to 10, from amongst which, PWs- 1 to 3 are the injured witnesses, PWs-4, 6 and 8 were the eyewitnesses, PW-5 is the panch witness for seizure of blood stained clothes of the injured, PW-9 is the panch witness for seizure of clubs, choppers as MOs-1 to 4, PW-7 is the Doctor and PW-10 is the Investigating Officer.
PWs-6 and 8, the independent witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, PWs-1 to 3 injured witnesses and PW-4 have supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs-1 to 3 Is corroborated by the evidence of PW-7 Doctor who has issued Exs.P9 to P11 showing that the injured were treated by her on 19.12.1999 at about 7 p.m. Exs.P9 to P11 shows that the injuries are simple in nature.
The Trial Court, relying on the evidence of PWs. 1. to 4, 7 and 10,. held that the prosecution has proved the case for offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC by sentencing them with two years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo further sentence of six months S.I.
Sri. A.H. Bhagwan, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that there was no pre-plan. Accused were not aware of PWs-1 to 3 having been released on bail and that they had gone to the police station. The incident had occurred in a sudden fight. Even in the incident, PWs-1 to 3 have not suffered any grievous injuries and it is also evident from Exs.P9 to P11, He relied on the cross-examination of PW-1 and pointed out that a suggestion has been made to PW-1 that there were several cases against PWs-1 to 3. Though PW-1 has denied, but he has admitted the pendency of S.C. No. 27/2004 and it is also admitted that his father has been convicted with ten years imprisonment.
Learned Counsel did not argue seriously with regard to the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC, however, his main contention is that the accused, though were armed with clubs and choppers, but the injuries found on PWs-1 to 3 were simple in nature, which shows that the accused had not intended to cause any grievous injury. If the accused had the intention to assault and cause grievous injuries, the accused Nos. 1 and 4 who were armed with choppers would have assaulted and caused grievous injuries or even death. But, PW-7 and Exs.P9 to P11 show that the injuries are all simple in nature. They have sustained laceration. It does not even show that chopper or clubs have been used to assault PWs-1 to 3. Such injury could be caused even in the fight, if someone falls to the hard surface of the ground. Even if there is any injury, it is not on account of the assault on the part of the accused, but it is only because of fight between accused and PWs-1 to 3. It is further submitted that accident occurred in the year 1999 and now after lapse of 12 years, accused were on bail during the course of trial and also in this appeal. There has been no incident of whatsoever for last 12 years and the nature of evidence led by the prosecution does not warrant that the accused should be imprisoned instead, they could be sentenced with a fine.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, when the prosecution has proved the case for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC, there is no reason to show leniency.
There is no doubt that PWs-1 to 3 are the injured witnesses and PW-4 is the eyewitness, and their evidence corroborates with the evidence of the Doctor who has examined the injured on the very same day. It is also not in doubt that all the injuries are simple in nature and are lacerations. If the weapon MOs.1 to 4 have been used, the injury could have been naturally grievous in nature, but there is no such injury found by the Doctor PW-7. The incident had occurred about 12 years back. The accused have been on bail throughout the trial and in this appeal also and there has been no incident nor the learned Government Pleader has pointed out about any other incident. Though the case of the prosecution proves that there was an injury, it is also doubtful whether the very same MOs-1 to 4 have been used to assault. Assuming that the said injuries are caused, in my opinion, the accused and PWs-1 to 3 being of the same small village and if there is no incident for last 12 years and they are living in harmony, no purpose would be served in sentencing the accused with imprisonment. Instead, accused could be shown leniency. Accordingly, I pass the following
ORDER
The conviction of accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed. However, accused are sentenced with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default accused shall undergo three months S.I. each. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 10,000/- each be paid to PWs-1 to 3 and the remaining Rs. 10.000/- be appropriated to the State account.