HIRIANNA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried for an offence under S 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Munsiff-cum-Magistrate (First Class), Udipi, on a charge-sheet filed by the Udipi Rural Police. The charge against the petitioner was that on 1-1-70 at about 7 A.M., he voluntarily beat Gururaja Bhatta (P.W.1) with a firewood and caused simple hurt. Six P.Ws. were examined in support of the prosecution case. But the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution. The learned Munsiff, after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.324, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.100, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The accused challenged the legality and correctness of his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge of South Kanara at Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 1970. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties found the accused guilty of the offence under S. 323, thus altering the conviction of the accused from S.S24 IPC. He confirmed the sentence of simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. But the sentence of fine imposed by the Magistrate was reduced to Rs.60 ; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the accused has filed this revision petition. The only contention urged by Mr. Ramachandra Rao learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case which, according to him, has resulted in prejudice being caused to the accused. He therefore urged that the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are not sustainable in law.