- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:642 CRL.A No. 100298 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100298 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: 1. MARUTI @ BABANNA S/O. NINGAPPA PARIT AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, VAGHWADE, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SANTOSH S/O. ANANT PARIT AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, VAGHWADE TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SONYA @ DINESH S/O. MARUTI BABAN PARIT, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALMESHWAR GALLI, VAGHWADE, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CORUT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH BRPS BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BELAGAVI IN OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 354, 307 READ WITH 149 IPC IN S.C.NO. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.17 16:32:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:642 CRL.A No. 100298 of 2017 265 OF 2011 DATED 01.09.2017 KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED KINDLY BE ACQUITTED. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.09.2017. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 307, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo simple or rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. 2. The prosecution’s case is that a civil dispute exists between the complainant and the accused concerning a partition suit. Due to this dispute, animosity had developed between the parties. On 21.01.2011, the complainant and her family attended the Yallamma Devi Jatre. After the event, in the evening, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 7 approached them and pressured them to withdraw the court case. The complainant’s in-laws informed the accused that they would comply with the court’s order and would not withdraw the suit. This led to an exchange of words, during which accused No. 1 assaulted Yallappa with a sprinkler belt and also attacked Darshan. Accused No. 3 struck the complainant’s father-in-law on the head with the ‘kalaga’ of a bullock cart. When Baburao Parit tried to intervene, accused Nos. 2 and Dinesh - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:642 CRL.A No. 100298 of 2017 assaulted him. When the complainant and her mother-in-law attempted to help, accused Nos. 6 and 7 assaulted them. The accused fled the scene when the complainant and her in-laws raised an alarm 3. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and exhibited documents at Exs. P.1 to P.11, and marked objects as M.O.1 to M.O.13. 4. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Perused the Trial Court records. 6. P.W.2 is an injured witness, and in his examination-in- chief, he categorically stated that he was assaulted by accused No.1 with a sprinkler belt, resulting in injuries. He further testified that accused No.3 assaulted him on his head, and accused Nos. 2 and 4 assaulted his son. Accused No.5 assaulted C.W.7 on his back, and accused Nos. 6 and 7 assaulted P.W.1 and his wife with their hands and legs. Nothing in the cross-examination undermines P.W.2’s statement, and the testimony regarding the assault on him, his wife, and his son remains uncontroverted. To substantiate the injuries sustained by the witness, the prosecution presented medical certificates at Exs. P.5 and P.6. Ex.P.5 notes that Yallappa sustained multiple lacerations (6 x ½ cm, 3 x ½ cm, and 2 x ½ cm) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:642 CRL.A No. 100298 of 2017 over the occipital region, with minimal sub-arachnoid bleed in the parietal region, a compound comminuted fracture of the upper third of the ulna with radial head dislocation on the right side, a fracture of the lower third of the left radius, and a fracture of the base of the third metacarpal bone. The wound certificate at Ex.P.6 indicates that the injuries sustained by Darshan, the son of P.W.2, were simple in nature. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of State vs. Sheenappa Gowda and Others, held that the evidence of P.W.1 in that case only indicated injury as described in the wound certificate (Ex.P.2). The Bench observed that if P.W.1 suspected a fracture, he ought to have referred the injured (P.W.4) for an X-ray to confirm the fracture. The Court ruled that unless the prosecution produces an X-ray to confirm the fracture opined by the doctor upon clinical examination, it cannot be established that the accused caused grievous injury. Consequently, the Sessions Judge’s finding that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, and that the offence fell under Section 324 of the IPC, was justified. 8. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the incident of 21.01.2011 through the evidence of the injured witness, eyewitnesses, and medical records. However, the doctor who examined the injured witnesses did not refer them for X-rays to confirm fractures. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses fall under the purview of Section 324 of the IPC, and not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:642 CRL.A No. 100298 of 2017 under Section 326 IPC. Therefore,, the impugned judgment of conviction requires modification to this extent. 9. Section 324 of the IPC provides that whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, cutting, or any instrument likely to cause death, or by means of fire, poison, corrosive substances, explosives, or any deleterious substance, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. 10. In this case, the accused and the complainant are close relatives, and the incident occurred spontaneously when accused No.1 threatened P.W.2 to withdraw the partition suit. Considering the circumstances, it would be sufficient if the appellants/accused are sentenced to payment of a fine instead of undergoing imprisonment. Accordingly, I pass the following ; ORDER i) Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction, dated 01.09.2017, passed in S.C. No.265/2011 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi insofar it relates to convicting the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 326 IPC is set aside , and the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504, and 506. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:642 CRL.A No. 100298 of 2017 iii) The impugned order of sentence, dated 01.09.2017, passed in the aforesaid case is hereby modified as under: ● Appellants / Accused herein shall pay a fine amount of Rs.6,000/- each and deposit the same before the Trial Court within four weeks from today. ○ Out of the fine amount of Rs.24,000/-, a sum of Rs..18,000-/- be released in favour of P.W.2 and balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- be remitted to State Exchequer. ○ In the event of appellants/accused not depositing the fine amount within the period stipulated, the appellants/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37