- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1238 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LATHA W/O LATE VIJENDRA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. SRI PRAMODA S/O LATE VIJENDRA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. SRI PAVAN S/O LATE VIJENDRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.2564, 2ND CROSS, VONTIKOPPAL MYSURU PIN CODE-570 002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJU C N, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY V V PURAM POLICE MYSORE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PIN CODE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED IN C.C.NO.4095/2015 DATED 04.03.2022 PASSED BY THE 6TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MYSURU AND IN CRL.A.NO.110/2022 DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341,323,326 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: Conviction for the Offence punishable under Section Sentence Fine Default sentence 341 15 days -- -- 323 Three months simple imprisonment -- -- 326 Two years simple imprisonment Rs.5,000/- -- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 3. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.110/2022. By considered judgment dated 14.09.2022, appeal came to be dismissed and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court got confirmed. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that the material evidence placed on record are hardly sufficient to maintain the conviction for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, in the absence of original x-ray certificate and the radiological report. 6. Therefore, conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be set aside and by scaling down to offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he submits that suitable orders be passed by enhancing the fine amount reasonably and setting aside the imprisonment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 7. Per contra, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment by contending that the wound certificate mentions about the CT scan of the injured and it reflects that there is a fracture on the little finger of the left hand. 8. Therefore, offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be maintained and revision petition is to be dismissed in toto. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, prosecution is successful in establishing the incident that occurred on 04.05.2015 at about 09.00 a.m. in front of the house bearing No.2565, V.V. Mohalla, Mysuru City. 11. The genesis of the incident as is propounded by the prosecution is that on 04.05.2015 at about 09.00 a.m. when PW-1 spilled the water in the gutter after washing the plate, after feeding her children, accused persons said to have restrained her from doing so. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 12. First accused assaulted with hands on the body of the complainant. When CW-2 tried to rescue and enquire as to why complainant has been assaulted, accused No.2 took out a brick piece(M.O-1) and assaulted CW-2 on the head. Accused No.3 assaulted CW-2 on the cheek and caused fist injury. Also with the help of MO-2(iron spade), assaulted on the head whereby CW-2 sustained grievous injuries as per the wound certificate marked on behalf of the prosecution at Exhibit P-7. 13. PW-11, who is the doctor and author of Exhibit P-7 has withstood the searching cross-examination on behalf of the accused. 14. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the accused while recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incident and all the accused persons have denied the incident in toto. 15. Injured eye witnesses have deposed before the Court about the incident with graphic details which resulted in the Trial Court convicting the accused and sentencing as referred to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 supra which has been re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court while confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 16. This Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter. 17. However, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Trial Magistrate while convicting the accused for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, in the absence of x-ray certificate or the original radiological report as is held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Sheenappa Gowda and others reported in 2010 SCC ONLINE KAR 5294. 18. Relevant paragraph in the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “18. Therefore, the question for determination is limited to find out whether the said injury No. 2 is proved to be a grievous injury sustained by PW. 4. It is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution and that burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence as enumerated in the Penal Code, 1860 is taken by the accused. In this case, the defence taken by the accused is one of denial. It is clear from the evidence of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 PW. 1 that he has given description of injury on physical examination of PW. 4 and has come to the conclusion that there was fracture of the middle phalanx. It is well settled that when the prosecution alleges that grievous injury has been caused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the same beyond resonable doubt. The evidence of PW.1. would only show that there was injury as described in the wound certificate - Ex.P2. When PW. 1 suspected such fracture, he ought to have referred the injured - PW. 4 for taking X-ray to confirm his finding that there is fracture of middle phalanx. It is now well settled hat unless the prosecution produces the X-ray for confirmation of fracture opined by the Doctor on medical examination clinically it cannot be said that the accused have caused grievous injury of fracture. It is true that in the cross- examination of PW. 1, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused has not disputed the nature of injuries spoken to by PW.1. However, he same would not dispense with the production the X-ray by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured had sustained fracture of middle phalanx, which is an opinion given by PW. 1 Doctor only on clinical examination of PW. 4, the injured. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and the offence committed by them falls within the ambit of Section 324 of I.P.C. is justified.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 19. Following the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court supra, conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 20. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution for non-production of original x-ray certificate or the CT scan report or for that matter radiological report. 21. Mere mentioning of that injured has been subjected to CT scan in Exhibit P-7 would not be sufficient proof for upholding the order of conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Therefore, revision petitioners are entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code by scaling down the same to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as there was use of MO-1 (brick) and MO-2(iron spade) in the incident and there is a bleeding injury. 23. Having said thus, offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code being acquitted and it is scaled down to 324 of the Indian Penal Code where there is no minimum punishment prescribed, if the accused persons are directed to undergo - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.35,000/- payable by each of the accused persons on or before 30.04.2026 would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. 24. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Revision Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Rest of the order of conviction stands unaltered. (iv) Consequently, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is modified by directing the revision petitioners to undergo simple - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19978 CRL.RP No. 1238 of 2022 imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court and to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.35,000/- each payable on or before 30th April 2026. (v) On receipt of the entire enhanced fine amount, sum of Rs.75,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to PW-2 under due identification. (vi) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount on or before 30th April 2026, petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Office directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith, for issue of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 82