High CourtsDivision Bench

State of Karnataka vs Athiq Alias Mohammed Athiq

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 3 August 2010 · Citation: (2011) 1 KarLJ 522 : (2011) 4 KCCR 415 SN

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Sreedhar Rao, J · Jawad Rahim, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307, 323, 324
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 372 words

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—One Baba-P.W. 2 is the injured-cum-complainant. On 6-3-2003 around 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 was working in the Mutton Shop. Accused familiar to him came and requested loan of Rs. 20/- . P.W. 2 refused. Accused became wild. He assaulted him and caused injuries with blade for not giving money.C. Ws. 2 to 4, who were at the scene rescued P.W. 2. P.W. 2 had gone to Police Station and lodged a complaint at 9.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W. 2 was examined by the doctors at 9.30 p.m. Wound certificate shows that P.W. 2 had sustained incised injury on the chest. The injuries are said to be simple in nature. Accused is held for committing offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Trial Court acquitted the accused. State is in appeal.

2.

The reasons given by the Trial Court while rejecting the evidence of P.W. 2 is untenable. The credibility of the evidence of P.W. 2 cannot be doubted. P.W. 2 has given complaint to the police within half an hour to the police and examined by the doctor immediately thereafter. These two circumstances would corroborate evidence of P.W. 2. The fact that other eye-witnesses are not examined is the fault of the State Public Prosecutor. The fact that the recovery is not done is the fault on the part of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, fault on the part of PP or Investigating Officer would not be a ground to reject the credible testimony of the injured witnesses. We are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W. 2 clearly proves the incident.

3.

With regard to manner of assault and nature of injury, it is not suggested that accused had no intention of causing injury to P.W. 2. Accused is guilty of committing only offence u/s 323 of IPC. The order of acquittal is set aside. Accused is convicted u/s 324 of IPC. Accused was in detention for about one and half a year during trial. The said period is imposed as sentence and accused is deemed to have served the sentence. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.

4.

Amicus Curiae fee is fixed at Rs. 7,000/-. State shall pay the fees to Mr. Amit Deshpande.