- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 926 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR REP. BY SPP. HIGH COURT BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND: NAGAMALLU S/O ANKASHETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O BEDARAPURA VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK – 571 313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAVEED S, AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.30/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHAMARAJANAGARA AND IMPOSE ADEQUATE SENTENCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326 OF IPC BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2012 AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 01.02.2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHAMARAJANAGARA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER 1. The prosecution has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2016 passed in Crl.A No.30/2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, whereby the appeal for enhancement of sentence for the offence under Section 326 of IPC has been dismissed. 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant – Mahesh S/o Ankashetty is a resident of Bedarapura Village. His father Ankashetty has two sons and one daughter. The complainant is his first son. According to him, he was not given any share in the ancestral properties. However, he had put up a shed in the land and he was residing along with his wife and children and he was doing mason work for his livelihood. On 15.11.2009, at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 and his wife were standing in front of the said house, the younger brother of the complainant and his parents were cultivating the land. By the time, the complainant requested them to allot a portion of his share for the purpose of cultivation. It was denied and all the family members have started assaulted him and also abusing him and caused injuries to him and his wife. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital by the neighbour. The Head Constable – PW.6 after receiving the information, visited the Government Hospital, Chamarajanagar and recorded the statement of the complainant, which is marked as Ex.P3 and registered the case in Crime No.192/2009. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4 and also identified one material object as M.O.1. 5. The Trial Court recorded the conviction against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 341 and 323, r/w 34 of IPC. Further, accused No.1 has been convicted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. The accused No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 6. The parties had preferred two respective appeals for their respective prayers. Crl.A No.13/2012 had been preferred by the accused. The same has been modified and accused No.1 has been acquitted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Crl.A No.30/2012 preferred filed by the State has been dismissed. As against the said order, the State has preferred this revision petition. 7. Heard Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State and Sri.Javeed.S, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 8. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State that the Appellate Court has completely misread the averments of the complaint and contents thereof and recorded the acquittal for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, which - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 is unsustainable for the reason that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 320 of IPC and evidence of the eyewitnesses and medical evidence would indicate that the injuries caused to the complainant are grievous in nature. Therefore, the order of conviction was passed by the Trial Court. However, the minimum sentence of two years was to be awarded for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. As the Trial Court had failed to impose minimum sentence of two years for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the State had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal which is erroneous and the same is required to be set aside and this revision petition has to be allowed. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent vehemently justified the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and he further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment opined that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 sentence can be reduced based on the circumstances and also the fact. When such being the settled principle of law, insisting the Court to award minimum sentence of two years is unsustainable and the same cannot be awarded. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Appellate Court, it appears from the record that the complainant had sustained injuries and he was taken to the hospital for treatment. There, he gave his statement before the police and the police have recorded his statement and thereafter, a case came to be registered against the accused. No doubt, the charge sheet has been submitted against the accused. 11. On perusal of Ex.P1, the Doctor mentioned several injuries stated to have been inflicted to the complainant. According to the Doctor, the said wounds are grievous in nature. The Doctor who treated the injured has been examined as PW.1 and he further stated in his evidence that left hand of the complainant got fractured. The said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8165 CRL.RP No. 926 of 2016 fracture has been noticed on subjecting the said wound parts for x-ray. However, the said x-ray has not been produced and marked, to substantiate the said fracture. In the absence of production of the said x-ray, it cannot be construed as it is a fracture injury. Once, it is not considered as a fracture injury, the conviction in respect of offence under Section 326 of IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, in my considered view, the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court in acquitting accused No.1 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC is appropriate and proper. There is no reason to interfere with the said findings. Hence, the revision petition filed by the State has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 12. The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae is appreciated. The same is placed on record. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the learned Amicus Curiae for his effective assistance forthwith. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14