- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1351 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. INDRAMMA W/O BOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. ARUNA D/O BOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. SRI. SANTHOSH S/O BOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 4. BOMMANNA S/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST R/AT OBAVVANAAGATHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK – 577501 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI A R DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M H SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 AND: STATE BY BHARAMASAGARA POLICE CHITRADURGA TALUK, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA ON 09.09.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.127/2014 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This petition is filed against the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 326 read with sec 34 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- to accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 4 shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and accused No.3 shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and joined fine was imposed to all of them. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material available on record that the complaint was lodged on the next date of incident - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 though incident was taken place on 14.07.2012 at 1.30 p.m., and injured went to the hospital around 3.40 p.m. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 ought to have been rejected for false implication and inimical against the petitioners and medical officer who was treated PW1 has not been cited as witness and X-ray has not been produced and as per the medical evidence, offence under Section 326 of IPC has not attracted and hence, both the Courts committed an error considering Section 326 of IPC and ought to have been invoked Section 325 of IPC at any stretch of imagination and there is no any corroboration in the evidence of witnesses and witnesses are related to each other and both the Courts ought to have taken more care while appreciating the evidence of relative witnesses. It is also contend that there was a dispute with regard to running of channel in between the house of PW3 and accused persons and due to prior enmity, all of them have deposed against the petitioners. Hence, it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 jurisdiction and there is no any legal evidence against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that PW1 is an injured witness and PW3, PW4 are the eye-witnesses to the incident and they deposed that assault was made with the club and stone and the same are seized and marked before the Trial Court as MO1 and MO2. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that PW1 who had sustained injury of fracture of elbow and same is grievous in nature and though doctor who treated the injured was not examined but other doctor who is in service examined as PW6 and he deposed that doctor who treated PW1 is not in service and hence, she was requested to give wound certificate and accordingly she has given the same and the Trial Court taken note of wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P3 considered the nature of the injury and rightly convicted and sentenced - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 against accused persons and only two years sentence is passed even for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record the points that would arise for consideration of this ct are: Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons and the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the revision jurisdiction? 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, the scope of revision is very limited and this Court can interfere with the finding of both the Courts if the evidence available on record and finding given by both the Courts are not legal and if order suffers from its legality and correctness, then this Court can - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 exercise its jurisdiction. In the case on hand, having considered the evidence of PW1 who is injured who deposed that there was a galata between PW3 and accused persons on 14.07.2012 around 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. and he immediately rushed to the spot and tried to pacify the galata and at that time, accused persons abused him in a filthy language and accused No.3 assaulted with club on his left hand and as a result, his elbow was fractured and accused No.1 assaulted with stone and accused No.4 fisted on his chest and other accused persons slapped on his cheek and this incident was witnessed by PW3 and PW4 and thereafter, PW1 was taken to the hospital and treated him and on the very next day, PW1 gave the complaint. In his cross-examination, no doubt, it is elicited with regard to the relationship between CW2 and CW3 and PW1 says that when PW3 was making galata near the house of accused persons and in the incident spot, accused persons were there and others were witnessing the same standing on the road and cannot tell their names. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 7. The other witness is PW3 who claims to be eye witness to the incident and she reiterated the evidence of PW1 and in the cross-examination, she speaks about abusing in a filthy language and also PW1 had sustained injuries and blood was found and she claims that she also sustained injury and she took treatment in the Sirigere hospital, but, no documents placed in this regard before the Court. It is also elicited that there is a channel in between the houses of accused persons and PW3 and there was an enmity in this regard even prior to the incident. 8. The other witness is PW4 who is also an eye- witness and he also reiterates the evidence of PW1 and in the cross-examination he speaks that it used to take said incident earlier also and earlier complaint was given and due to the injury of fracture sustained by PW1, the complaint was given and PW1 took the treatment in the hospital and they have also went to the hospital. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 9. Having taken note of the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4, only this Court has to examine whether any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court having considered their evidence i.e., PW1 - injured witness, PW3 and PW4 - eye witnesses. In the case on hand, no contradictions are elicited with regard to the incident is concerned and they specifically deposed that PW1 was immediately taken to the hospital and Ex.P3 wound certificate also discloses that injury Nos.1 and 3 are simple in nature and injury No.2 is a fracture and grievous in nature and MO1 and MO2 are also seized which were used for assaulting PW1. Having taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 is consistent and Trial Court in paragraph 8 taken note of the fact that PW1 and PW4 are the own brothers, PW3 is the wife of PW4 and they have consistently stated about the time, place, material objects from which assault was made on PW1. If they are relative witnesses also, Court has to consider their evidence meticulously and Trial Court held that no contradictions - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 found in PW1, PW3, PW4’s evidence and same also taken note of by the Trial Court and delay also taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph 9 since injured was taken to the hospital on the very same day of incident and provided treatment and the Trial Court also taken note of the injuries found in Ex.P3. The First Appellate Court also having re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraph 30 taken note of injuries found in wound certificate at Ex.P3 and in paragraph 32 taken note of with regard to the quarrel taken place between PW3 and accused persons and in paragraph 36 held that admittedly there is a delay of one day in filing the complaint about the incident before police. Evidence of PW1 and 4 reveals that by expecting appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4 for settlement, PW1 and 4 made one day delay to file complaint and in paragraph 42 taken note of evidence elicited with regard to the incident. When such material considered by both the Courts, I do not find any error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 the Courts. Hence, no grounds is made out to interfere with the finding of both the Courts as there is no perversity. Accordingly, the above point is answered accordingly. 10. However, taking into note of the fact that accused persons and complainant are the neighbourers and there is enmity between them with regard to running of channel between their houses and same could be taken note of and this Court can reduce the sentence from two years to six months considering the nature of injury committed and in respect of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and the Court has to take lenient view when the common intention has been considered and the Court cannot distinguish the same when all of them have participated in the incident since incident was taken place long back i.e., in the year 2012 and almost a decade has been elapsed and PW1 had sustained the injury of fracture on elbow, he could be compensated by enhancing the fine amount by reducing - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4743 CRL.RP No. 1351 of 2016 the sentence and hence instead of Rs.5,000/- against accused No.3, it is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- and in respect of accused No.1 who assaulted with stone is ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.3,000/- and accused Nos.2 and 4 assaulted with their hands and they are ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and directed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from today. Out of the amount of Rs.95,000/-, ordered to pay Rs.75,000/- to PW1 who had sustained the fracture of elbow and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall vest with the State. If the revision petitioners fails to deposit the fine amount as imposed by this Court, the sentence ordered by the Trial Court would remains. In view of reducing the sentence enhancing the fine amount, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN