- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. LOHITHA, S/O. LATE. MOHANA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. NEAR COURT, KUVEMPU NAGARA, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. BHARATHI M., FOR SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, IN THE HIGH COURT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 16.01.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 19.01.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA IN S.C.NO.202/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 OF IPC. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 THIS CRL.A , COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Bharathi M., learned counsel for Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with consent of the parties. 3. Appellant is accused No.3 who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 4. Facts in the nutshell, which are most essential for disposal of the appeal are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 4.1. A complaint came to be lodged by Smt.Leelavathi against Nagarathna, Bharath, Lohitha (appellant) and Lokesha, alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 324, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') by contending that on 02.04.2018 in Channarayapatna Town at Kuvempu road, adjacent to B.M. road, when the complainant was standing near the gate, in front of her house, at about 9.30 p.m, accused persons came there, abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted and they gave a life threat. 4.2. After registering the case, the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. 5. Thereafter, the matter was tried in SC.No.202/2021 and after due trial, learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and convicted accused No.3 alone, noticing that material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would warrant the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 and convicted the appellant and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.3 is before this Court, in this appeal. 7. Smt.Bharathi M., learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the material evidence on record is hardly sufficient to maintain the conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and thus, sought for allowing the appeal. 7.1. Alternatively, Smt.Bharathi M, would further contend that in the event of this Court up-holding the order of conviction, since the appellant is a first time offender without there being any criminal antecedents, Court may grant probation to the appellant. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 8. Per contra, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment. 8.1. He would further contend that material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to attract all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, in as much as, it is the appellant who has assaulted the injured with the iron rod resulting in blood injury and the very fact that the learned Trial Judge has taken note of all attendant circumstances, acquitted other accused persons and convicted the present appellant alone would show there is sufficient application of judicial mind into the facts and circumstances of the case and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8.2. Sri Channappa Erappa, would further contend that the material evidence on the record shows that there is no incriminating material evidence placed on record on behalf of the appellant for considering alternate submissions. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 8.3. He also pointed out that appellant is the habitual offender and he was involved in other cases and therefore, probation cannot be granted. 9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the material evidence on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC? 2. Whether the appellant makes out a case that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for interference? 3. Whether the sentence needs modification? 4. What order? REG.POINTS No.1 and 2: 11. In the case on hand, the complainant Leelavathi is examined as PW.1. Bhanumathi - the doctor of Channarayapatna Government Hospital, has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 issued the wound certificate of Leelavathi, which is marked at Ex.P5. There is no delay in lodging the FIR narrating the incident. In fact, the police registered the case only after receipt of MLC information from the Channarayapatna Government Hospital vide Ex.P6. 12. The material on record would indicate that there was a civil dispute pending between the parties and in that regard, the quarrel has taken place on the fateful day. The specific case of the complainant is that on 02.04.2018, at about 9.45 p.m, when Leelavathi was standing near the gate in front of her house, all the accused persons appeared there, picked up the quarrel on account of previous enmity, abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted her with hands and present appellant Lohitha assaulted with an iron rod on the left parietal region. 13. When the daughter of the complainant tried to rescue her, the accused persons also pushed her. Madan who is the son of Leelavathi examined as PW2, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 has specifically deposed that he is staying in house No.1222, ward No.12 of Channarayapatna along with his parents and on the date of incident, when he was in the house, he heard a loud screaming made by his mother, and immediately his sister came out and they noticed that blood was oozing out from the injured on her head. He also deposed about the pendency of a civil litigation between them in O.S.No.415/2013. 14. Taking note of the oral testimony of the injured witnesses, her son and the independent witnesses, learned Trial Judge noticed that the injuries caused to Leelavathi is an voluntary attack of appellant with iron rod marked at MO.1 and rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 15. Why would Leelavathi, her son and daughter would falsely implicate somebody else allowing the real culprits to escape away from the rigors of law, remains the question which is unanswered by the appellant. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 16. As per the wound certificate, the injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 324 is made out insofar as the appellant is concerned. No proper explanation is forthcoming from the appellant at the time of recording the accused statement. Therefore, points No.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative. REG. POINT No.3: 17. Admittedly, the appellant is an young person and in view of the civil dispute, the altercation has taken place. Even though the prosecution contended that there are number of cases against the appellant and he is the habitual offender, no particulars are forthcoming in that regard. Learned Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC has imposed maximum period of 3 years of punishment as prescribed in the statute, but did not chose to accord the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 18. No discussion is forthcoming in that regard. Since the appellant being convicted for the first time, there was no necessity for the Trial Court to impose the imprisonment without adverting to the beneficial piece of legislation under the Probation of Offenders Act. 19. Getting the opinion from the Probation Officer at this distance of time, that too, before this Court and for that purpose, remitting the matter to the Trial Court, result in futile exercise. 20. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the incident has occurred at spur of the moment especially in the light of pending civil litigation, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and setting aside the imprisonment of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, would meet the ends of justice in facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 REG. POINT No.4: 21. In view of the findings of this Court on points No.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, sentence ordered by the Trial Judge is modified by setting aside the imprisonment of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial Court and Rs.25,000/- by this Court) to be paid on or before 15.03.2025, failing which the appellant shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Judge. iii. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.35,000/- be paid as compensation to PW.1-Leelavathi (Rs.10,000/- ordered by the Trial Court and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6658 CRL.A No. 557 of 2023 Rs.25,000/- ordered by this Court), under due identification. iv. Balance fine amount shall be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of State. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records along with copy of this order forthwith, by issuing modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17