PHILIP PHARAAK FERNANDES AND Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the conviction of two accused who are the petitioners before this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, North Kanara Accused convicted Under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to 4 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Accused 2 is convicted Under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to two months R. I. only.

(2.) The facts leading to this revision are briefly as follows: On 3-1-1957 at Kasarket (N. E.) between 2.30 or 3 P. M. a scuffle took place in a street between the accused and the complainants who are P.Ws. 1 and 2. These two are closely related to each other. That these witnesses were injured there can be no doubt. P.W. 1 seems to have received serious injuries. It is also not denied that accused 2 also has sustained injuries. As per the certificate marked as Exhibit P-30 issued by the Medical Officer of Bonnavar who has been examined as P.W. 4 in the case, the injury on the head of accused 2 above the right ear was a contused one 2"x1/2'x1/2". As the scuffle too place in broad daylight and in a public street, there was little difficulty in apprehending the accused. The accused and the complainants were also taken to the hospital for treatment. It is also not denied that Accused 2 also preferred a complaint. That complaint is Exhibit P-29.

(3.) It is urged by Sri Ramachandra, the learned advocate for the petitioners that the conviction of these accused is not sustainable in law. According to him, the provisions of Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are contravened inasmuch as, an important document like the complaint Exhibit P-29 was not furnished to the accused even though the prosecution relies upon it.