- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE MARIJOGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVALLI S.Y., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIVALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 24.07.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.183/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 324 AND 326 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed against the against the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code convicting the accused/appellant for a period of two years and imposing fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- with 3 months imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 are husband, mother-in-law and sister of the accused. It is alleged that all of them assaulted the complainant and caused the injuries and based on the complaint of the complainant, case was registered and investigation was completed and invoked the offence punishable under Section 324, 326 and 307 of IPC. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of injured P.W.1 and also the witness P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also medical evidence the Doctor who examined the injured P.W.1 immediately after the incident and wound certificate is also marked as Ex.P4 and having considered wound certificate, x-ray which is marked as Ex.P5 and also the report as per Ex.P.6 comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 326 of IPC and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, present appeal is filed. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that a false case was initiated against the accused and on the date of the alleged incident accused has not committed any such offence either assaulting and abused the complainant and Trial Court committed an error in accepting the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 interested witnesses and M.O-1 was taken note of for inflicting the injury. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error when the P.W.4 not supported the case of prosecution and he turned hostile and only considering the interested witnesses of P.W.1 to P.W.3 committed an error. The counsel also would vehemently contend that specific defense was taken that it was only an accidental fall in the bathroom when the P.W.1 fell down and sustained injury and the same was not taken note of by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. 5. Per Contra, the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State would submits that the injured evidence corroborates with the medical evidence that is P.W.1 and P.W.5 and documentary evidence Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 clearly discloses the same and Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.6-Investigating Officer who has received the complaint and registered the case and investigated the matter and he also seized the M.O which contains the blood stains and also Ex.P.9-FSL report confirms the same - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 that the blood proof of victim found in the FSL report and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court while convicting the accused and does not requires any interference. 6. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the material available on record and also grounds urged in the appeal memo, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 326 of IPC and whether it requires interference by exercising the appellate jurisdiction? 2) What Order? 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent- State and considering the material on record, it is the case of the prosecution that complainant and accused married long back that is 28 years ago as a result both of them - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 having five daughters and the accused is not happy with when she gave birth to five daughters and subjected her for assault even kept her in another portion of the house and that on 06.07.2011 at about 8:30 the complainant and her daughters and son-in-law were having food and at that time, accused persons came and abused her in a filthy language and she is not giving any permission for second marriage and hence, accused No.1 with an intention to take away the life of the complainant, assaulted her and as a result she has sustained injury to head and also to hand and she has suffered the fracture and hence, based on the complaint case was registered and investigated the matter. 8. 8. The prosecution in order to prove the case, mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 who is the injured victim and she re-iterates the assault made by the accused and she categorically states that he assaulted his younger daughter and when she questioned the accused, abused in a filthy language and by taking the club, he - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 assaulted on her head and when she put forward across her hand to ward of the injury she gave her left hand and as a result she has sustained injury to left hand and immediately when she sustained injury to head and shoulder, children and son-in-law called the Ambulance and taken her to hospital and she gave the statement in the hospital as well as to the Police and she identifies the signature in Ex.P.1 and also discloses that she only revealed the incident to the Doctor and she was in-patient for a period of four days and she was discharged and she was not able to do any work for a period of one month. It is also her evidence that as a result of the incident her saree was also blood stained and Police have seized the same and even the club was also seized and the same is identified as M.O-1 and saree is marked as M.O-2. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-examination it is elicited that half acre of land was given to her and her husband and suggestion was made that she was insisting her husband to transfer the property to her name and the said suggestion was denied. It is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 suggested that she accidentally fell down in the bathroom and sustained injuries and suggested that herself, her children and son-in-law all of them have joined together and registered the false case and the said suggestion was denied. 9. The other witness is P.W.2 who is the daughter of P.W.1 and she also re-iterates that the father had made galata with the mother for beating her daughter and also the accused took the club and assaulted on her head and in that process she also extended her left hand to ward of the injury to prevent the injury on the head the and hence she has sustained injury to her left hand and immediately she was taken to the hospital and Police have also came near the house and also enquired and she was in the hospital for a period of three days and mahazar was drawn. In the cross-examination she admits that when he made an attempt to take away her life, she was taken to the Gopal gowda hospital at Mysuru and she was in the hospital for a period of one and half month and also she admits that hospital expenses was met by her husband - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 and also her mother. It is suggested that the P.W.1 fell down in the bathroom accidentally and she had sustained injury and the said suggestion was denied. However, she says that she only gave M.O-1 to the Police and it was blood stained. 10. The other witness is P.W.3 who is the son-in- law and he says that in his presence only incident was taken place and his father-in-law assaulted the other daughter Shilpa and when the same was questioned, he was assaulted at the first instance with hands and thereafter with club and as a result she has sustained injury to head and also to hand and fracture was occurred and immediately she was taken to the Mandya Hospital and saree was also blood stained and Police also seized the club. This witness was also subjected to cross- examination and he admits that when the incident was taken place himself, his wife and P.W.2 were there at the spot and no other persons were there. He admits that the persons who are there in the house not going to the hospital and neighbors shifted her to the hospital. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 11. The other witness is P.W.4 who turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.5 is the Doctor and in her evidence, she says that when she was working in the emergency ward, injured came to the hospital on 06.07.2011 at around 10:30 and she examined the injured and C.W.5 brought her to the hospital and disclose that incident was taken place and she has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted her and noted the nature of injuries and issued the wound certificate and she identifies her signature in the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.4 and also Ex.P.5 is the X-ray and Ex.P.6 is the admission record. This witness was also subjected for cross-examination and suggestion was made that if any persons fallen on the hard surface, nature of injury Nos.1 to 6 could be occurred and except this suggestion, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.5. 12. The other witness is P.W.6 who is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and he says that he was incharge of Police Station and immediately he rushed to the government Hospital - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 Mandya and recorded the statement of the injured and he conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 504, 307, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is also her evidence that accused was apprehended and produced before him and so also accused No.2 was also arrested and produced before him and also he says that blood sample was collected and cloth M.O-1 and M.O-2 were sent to FSL and he has specifically deposed that in terms of Ex.P.9. This witness was also subjected for cross-examination and in the cross- examination suggestion was made that P.W.1 has not given complaint in terms of Ex.P.1 and the same was denied and so also suggestion was made that Ex.P.2 was created in the Police Station itself and the same was denied, but she claims that M.O-1 and M.O-2 were seized. The suggestion was made that M.O-1 and M.O-2 are implanted for the case and the same was denied. The accused also examined one witness and he comes before the Court and says that both of them were cordial and also the daughter made an attempt to commit suicide and she - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 was shifted to the Gopal Gowda hospital at Mysuru. He says that C.W.1 that is P.W.1 went and staying in a house of her sister and 2-3 months back the accused went and brought his wife, however, he says that 3-4 months back he came to know that the incident was taken place. This witness was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-examination, D.W.1 says that he cannot say for what reason P.W.1 had sustained the injuries and also he did not enquire and also he did not examine regarding her injuries and also she cannot tell who was there along with the P.W.1 in the hospital and also he admits that if any incident was taken place in the house of the accused, they hear the galata sound, but he was not there in the house on that day. 13. 13. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record as well as defense evidence and the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that when she questioned the act of the accused when he assaulted her younger daughter, the incident was taken place and he took out the club and assaulted on her head and when he - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 tried to assault more she extended her left hand to ward of the injury and that juncture she has sustained injury of fracture and in connection with the incident also she was taken to the hospital immediately and Doctor evidence also very clear that injured came to the hospital at 10:30 and she examined her and found six injuries and out of that injury No.5 is grievous in nature since acute pain and tenderness of left elbow was found and X-ray was taken and after taking the X-ray it was noted that injury No.1 was grievous in nature and there was a fracture and other injuries are simple in nature in terms of Ex.P.4. Having considered the evidence of P.W.4 was very clear that immediately after the incident, she was taken to the hospital and also her statement was recorded in the hospital itself by the Police and also Ex.P.7 is the report of injured was taken to the hospital and there was a fracture and P.W.2 is also the daughter who categorically deposes before the Court that she has witnessed the incident and accused No.1 only assaulted with the club and also she re- iterates the evidence of P.W.1 in her chief evidence and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 she also witness. The P.W.3 though says that he also witnessed the incident, but in the cross-examination he says that only neighbor took the injured to the hospital and hence, it is clear that he was not in the hospital at the time of taken away from the house at the time of the incident. 14. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is very clear that immediately after the incident, she was taken to the hospital within a span of one hour and history also revealed by the injured that her husband only assaulted and though an attempt was made to implicate the accused, other two accused wife and sister-in-law, but the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence available on record that no material against the other accused persons and only witnesses says that both of them were present at the time of the incident, but nothing is stated with regard to the assault made by them and the same was also taken note of by the Trial Court. 15. 15. Having considered both the evidences of P.W.1 injured as well as her daughter P.W.2 who was present at - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 the time of the incident and material available before the Court particularly Ex.P.4 is very clear that other injuries are simple in nature but injury No.5 is grievous in nature and wound certificate is also very clear that he has sustained the fracture and when such being the case, rightly invoked Section 324 and 326 of IPC and Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that there was no any intention to take away the life of the victim and hence, invoking Section 307 of IPC does not arise and with regard to the nature of injuries and also proportionate of the sentence also that commensurate with the nature of injuries sustained by the P.W.1 and the same is also not exorbitant in awarding the sentence and sentence is awarded 3 years for the offence under Section 326 of IPC since the injured had sustained the fracture and when such being the case, I do not find any ground to even to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court with regard to the sentence also and the same is also taking note of the gravity of the offence and nature of the injuries and the same is reasonable sentence and the same cannot be - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17677 CRL.A No. 844 of 2013 turned as exorbitant. Hence, I answer the point as ‘Negative’. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68