- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 998 OF 2018 BETWEEN: KRISHNEGOWDA S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O SALAGAME, HASSAN TALUK, PRESENT ADDRESS: VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN-573 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARADAMBA A.R, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE R/BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.90/2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN IN C.C.NO.5120/2014 (OLD.C.C.NO.197/2010) BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. AND THE PETITIONER BE ACQUITTED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.90/2018 dated 23.08.2018 by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Court at Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), wherein the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner/accused and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court') in C.C.No.5120/2014 (Old C.C No.197/2010) dated 07.05.2018. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The abridged facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are: On 08.12.2009 at about 6:30 p.m., the accused-elder brother of PW.1-complainant got home and picked a row owing to a property dispute. Following which the accused had verbal altercation with PW-1; this verbal altercation turned into - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 physical altercation in which PW-1 was assaulted with an iron chair on his right knee, owing to this he sustained fracture and grievous bleeding injuries. Further, PW-1 was threatened with dire consequences. Accordingly, the complainant-PW1 lodged a complaint before the respondent Police on 08.12.2009 which came to be registered in Crime No.234/2009 against the sole accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 of IPC. Later, during the course of investigation, the respondent Police apprehended the accused. On completing the investigation, the Police laid chargesheet before the Trial Court against the accused for the aforementioned offences. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences, framed the charges against the accused and the same was denied by the accused. 4. In order to prove the charges before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8, marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and identified 1 material object as M.O.1. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and thereby - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Further, a fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- was imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC respectively. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.90/2018. On re-appreciation of the comprehensive evidence on record, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court and thereby dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel Smt. Sharadamba A.R., for the revision petitioner and Sri. Rajath Subramanyam, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that both the Courts collectively failed to appreciate the comprehensive evidence on record in right perspective and convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him. She further contended that the complaint filed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 PW.1 was false and concocted and was filed with a diabolical intent to gratify vengeance as there was a civil dispute between PW.1 and his brothers; including the accused who was one of his brothers and in order to deprive the legitimate right of the accused which was devolved on him by virtue of a Will executed by his maternal grandfather. Further, it was contended that, both the Courts below ought to have appreciated that all the witnesses were interested witnesses and additionally contended that PW.1-the injured in the alleged incident has not specifically deposed supporting the case of the prosecution and PW.2-wife of PW.1 has also not deposed in consonance with that of PW.1. Alternatively, she contended that since the revision petitioner and the complainant are brothers and the alleged incident was caused without any premeditation, the weapons used in the offence and the part chosen by the accused clearly establishes that the offence under Section 326 of IPC does not attract and that at the most Section 324 of IPC may attract. In such circumstances, in order to maintain harmony between the family members, reasonable fine amount may be imposed and compensation may be ordered to be paid to the injured and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 9. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that both the Courts after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed well reasoned judgments do not call for any interference by this Court. He further contended that the eyewitnesses to the incident have collectively supported the prosecution case before the Trial Court. Albeit the injuried-PW.1 sustained fracture on his right knee and also bleeding injuries, however, no such glaring error was forthcoming in the judgment passed by both the Courts and the revision scope is significantly limited in nature. Hence, interference in the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this case. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the documents placed before this Court, the sole point that arise for my consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court requires any interference by this Court?" 11. As could be gathered, to prove the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court, the prosecution - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 predominantly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.8- Doctor. PW.1-complainant supported the case and he categorically deposed that on 08.12.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused-his elder brother visited his residence and picked a row leading to verbal and physical altercation, following which the accused assaulted him with an iron chair on his right knee owing to this he sustained fracture. He further deposed that he was forthwith admitted to the hospital and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. He also identified the said iron chair as M.O.1. This evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the complaint–Ex.P1 lodged by him. PWs.2 to 4 the eyewitnesses to the incident also reiterated the evidence of PW.1. Further, they also identified the chair–M.O.1, which was used in the crime. Additionally, the evidence of Doctor–PW.8 clearly depicts that PW.1 sustained injuries on his right knee joint and the said injury is grievous in nature. In such circumstances, there is no reason to discard the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the medical evidence of PW.8. Nevertheless PWs.5 and 7 the mahazar witnesses also supported the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. As far as the alternative contention is concerned, on careful perusal - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 i.e. the injured and his wife, they have categorically admitted in their evidence that there was a civil dispute between them and the accused. Harboring vengeance on such dispute, the alleged incident was caused. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the entire incident was caused in a spur of moment on grave and sudden provocation. Further, it is established that by using M.O.1-chair the accused assaulted PW.1's right knee. In such circumstances, it could be gathered that the accused had no such intention to inflict grievous injuries to PW.1. In the evidence of PW.8-Doctor, it is not forthcoming as to how many days PW.1 was hospitalized. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that, the act of the accused may attract the offence under Section 324 instead Section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. On the question of sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, since the revision petitioner is on bail from 12.03.2010, instead of committing him to prison a reasonable fine amount may be imposed to him for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Having perused the evidence and materials on record and also - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relationship between the parties, I am of the considered view that, a reasonable fine of Rs.1,00,000/- be imposed to the accused instead of sentencing him to imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC by awarding default sentence. The conviction imposed by the Trial Court in respect of Section 504 of IPC is liable to be kept intact. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed- in-part. ii. The conviction and order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.5120/2014 dated 07.05.2018 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court i.e. the Addl. District and Session Judge at Hassan in Crl.A.No.90/2018 dated 23.08.2018 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is modified and the accused/revision petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 326 of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 IPC and the accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. iii. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are kept intact. iv. The accused/revision petitioner is directed to deposit the entire fine amount as above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before the Trial Court i.e., Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan. v. In case the accused/revision petitioner fails to deposit the fine amount, the learned Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of the accused/revision petitioner and commit him to prison to undergo default sentence. vi. If the fine amount is deposited, the learned Magistrate is directed to intimate the same to PW.1 and disburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to him as compensation - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10133 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2018 under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C on due identification. The balance amount shall be submitted to the State Treasury. vii. The Bail bond executed by the accused/revision petitioner stands cancelled. Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with certified copy of this order forthwith to the Trial Court. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25