- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200078 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MEHABOOB S/O DASTAGIRSAB PEERZADE, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O CHAPPARBAND GALLI, NEAR CHAND TARA MASJID, VIJAYAPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH A UPLOANKAR,ADV.) AND: THE STATE THROUGH GOLGUMBAZ POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR, DIST.VIJAYAPUR, NOW REP. BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.362/2014 DATED: 22ND JUNE 2015 AND FURTHER THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR IN CRL. APPEAL NO.30/2015 BY JUDGMENT DATED 15TH NOVEMBER 2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2015 passed in C.C.No.362/2014 by the Principal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijaypur (for short ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2015 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (for short ‘Appellate Court’), wherein the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The ranks of the parties will be considered henceforth as that of Trial Court for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant Abdul Kareem lodged a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 complaint stating that, on 25.11.2013, at about 3.00 p.m., when he was on the way to his house, after finishing his regular work, the accused who is his neighbour, requested him to pay some amount for the purpose of consuming alcohol. When the complainant refused to pay the money, all of a sudden, the accused started abusing him in filthy language and assaulted him by means of wooden stick on his face. As a result of which, the complainant lost one of his teeth and also sustained other injuries. At that time, Ibrahim and Banubi rescued him, then, he went to the hospital for treatment. 4. Based on the information, a case came to be registered in Crime No.151/2013 for the offences under Sections 324, 326, 504 of IPC. After conducting investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and also identified two material objects as MOs.1 and 2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 6. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and convicted the accused for Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal in part as follows: (A) Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C is partly allowed. (B) Consequently, the interim stay granted stands vacated. (C) The sentence passed by Principal CJM, Vijayapur against the appellant accused in C.C.No.362/2014 dated 22.06.2015 is modified in the following terms:- (D) The sentence of the trial Court imposing simple imprisonment for six (6) months and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable u/s. 324 of IPC shall sustain. (E) The appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable u/s. 326 of IPC. (F) In case of default in payment of fine imposed on the both the counts, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 7. Heard Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the law and evidence on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgment are not proper for the reason that the Courts below have totally misconceived the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 wherein the entire case is depending on their evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 10. It is further submitted that to sustain the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, production of X-ray must be necessary. However, in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that Section 326 of IPC would be attracted in the given set of facts. 11. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in analyzing and understanding the definition of Section 320 of IPC which describes the ‘grievous hurt’. He further submitted that as the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly, interference with the findings is necessary. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction and its confirmation passed by the Appellate Court and further he submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses namely PWs.1 to 3 are relevant. They have supported the case of the prosecution. Their evidence has been corroborated by P.W.4. When the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 evidence of all these witnesses are proper, interfering with the findings may not be necessary. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader prays to reject the revision petition. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence and also the documents available on record. 14. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 had lost one of his teeth in the assault. P.W.1 supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 being one of the eyewitnesses also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 also supported the case of the prosecution. All the three witnesses are consistent that the accused had assaulted to the complainant and broken his tooth. P.W.4 being the Doctor, after examining the injured, opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and submitted the report as per Ex.P2. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 15. Having gone through the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents, it is relevant to refer Section 320 of IPC which reads as under: “320. Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:- First.- Emasculation. Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of eithereye. Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.” On careful reading of the above said definition, it makes it clear that the definition relating to the seventh item would indicate that, to attract the ingredients of Section 320 of IPC, there must be fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2863 CRL.RP No. 200078 of 2018 16. In the present case, the complainant has lost his tooth as per the wound certificate – Ex.P2. Such being the fact, production of X-ray would not arise. Therefore, conviction passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation passed by the Appellate Court are held to be proper and relevant. It is not appropriate to interfere with the said findings. 17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1