Sri Kumar vs State of Karnataka

V. Suri Appa Rao, J.—This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner which was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Holenarasipura, whereby the revision petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 326 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are hereunder: On 05.05.2007 at about 08:30 p.m., the accused being the son of Devegowda ploughing the land which was left for the maintenance of Devegowda. After seeing the accused ploughing the land, the CW1-Devegowda questioned the accused for which the accused picked up quarrel and assaulted his father Devegowda by means of Chovti kolu on the left hand ring finger, left thigh portion and caused injuries. On a complaint lodged by CW1-Devegowda, the respondent registered a case in Cr. No. 120/2007 for the offences punishable u/s 324 of IPC, after completion of the investigation and on receipt of the wound certificate, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC.

The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor framed charges under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC against accused. In order to prove aforesaid offences, the prosecution examined PW''s - 1 to 8 and marked Exs. P1 to P7. No oral or documentary evidence are adduced on behalf of the accused.

Considering the evidence of PW1 who is the another son of complainant-Devegowda and the medical evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court passed the above order of conviction and sentence while acquitting the accused for the offence u/s 324 of IPC.

Aggrieved by the above order of conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl. A. No. 62/2010 before Additional District Judge, Holenarasipura. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both the parties confirmed the judgment of trial Court on the ground that the prosecution established the charge u/s 326 of IPC as the injury found on the person-Devegowda was grievous in nature.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction by both the Courts, revision petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that during the trial PW-1 another son of the injured Devegowda was examined. The other witness PW5 - Channakeshava did not support the prosecution case. In order to establish the charge u/s 326 of IPC, the weapon used by the accused should be dangerous weapon. In the instant case, the weapon used by the accused is chawati which is not dangerous in nature. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused for the offence u/s 326 of IPC solely relying on the evidence of PW1 which is not corroborated with other eye witness is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that the land in question is allotted to injured Devegowda for his maintenance by the family members. When the accused ploughing the said land, the injured interfered and questioned him then the accused assaulted his father on his left hand finger and left side portion. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital for treatment and this was witnessed by PW1. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution shows that the injury caused to the left hand finger is grievous in nature and the other injury is simple in nature. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC and passed the above order of conviction and sentence. It is further submitted that the trial Court has taken lenient view because of the close relationship between the parties. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with me judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner.

Admittedly, Devegowda is none other than the father of PW1 as well as accused. PW1 who was the eye witness to the incident supported the prosecution case. Medical evidence produced by the prosecution also clearly shows that the injured Devegowda when he was produced before the Medical Officer he clearly states that he was assaulted by Kumar i.e., his son as per Ex. P6 - Wound certificate.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Civil dispute is pending between the parties, this case foisted against the accused. The wound certificate shows that injury No. 1 i.e., injury to left hand finger is fractured, the prosecution also produced X-ray report to prove the-injury caused to the complainant-Devegowda is grievous in nature. Unfortunately, the prosecution could not able to examine the injured Devegowda because he died even before commencement of trial. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW1 and medical evidence, the trial Court as well as Sessions Court found the accused guilty for the offences u/s 326 of IPC. The medical certificate and the evidence of PW1 clearly indicates that in the assault by the accused the injured Devegowda sustained grievous injury. The trial Court and the Sessions Court was of the view that the accused is liable for punishment u/s 326 of IPC. In the complaint as well as the contents of the charge sheet clearly shows that the accused assaulted the injured with chawati which is admittedly not a dangerous weapon. But the fact remains that the accused assaulted his own father Devegowda with chawati, when he interfered with the land which is given for the maintenance of Devegowda, though the weapon is not a dangerous weapon, the accused assaulted the injured and caused grievous injury. Therefore, he is liable for punishment u/s 325 of IPC instead of Section 326 IPC. The trial Court has taken lenient view in awarding punishment of three months imprisonment.

In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

As seen from the record, the accused under gone one month imprisonment. The accused is therefore directed to surrender before the trial Court within three months from the date of this judgment to serve the remaining sentence.