NINGAIAH S/O RAJANAIKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TALAKAD POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 241/1997 on the file of the Fast Track Court -IV at Mysore is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.2005 convicting the appellant -accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment tor a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE appellant along with three other accused persons was charge sheeted by the Talkad Police for the offences punishable tinder Sections 341, 326 and 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC inter alia alleging that at about 6.30 p.m. on 17.8.97, near the petty shop of one Basavanaika. situated at Kalabasavanahundi village, accused persons by sharing common intention, wrongfully restrained PW2 -Basavanaika and with an intention to commit murder. Accused No. 1 assaulted PW2 with a dangerous weapon namely knife on the vital part of the body causing him grievous hurt.

(3.) AFTER committal of the ease, accused persons appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them. After the prosecution closed its side of evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances. However, they did not chose to lead any evidence. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, by judgment under appeal held that the prosecution has proved the incident of assault by accused No. 1 on PW2 at about 6.30 p.m. on 17.8.97 in front of the petty shop in Kalabasavanahundi village. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge held accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against accused Nos. 2 to 4. In that view of the matter, accused Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted whereas accused No. 1 was convicted for the offence Dunishable under Section 324 of IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for accused No. 1, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass orders regarding sentence sentencing accused No. 1 as noticed supra. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused No. 1 is in appeal before this Court.