STATE Vs. DYAVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel who represents the accused-respondents. Technically, the learned State Counsel may be right when he points out that the Trial Court was in error in having recorded an order of acquittal because the evidence of the complainant which is corroborated by the medical evidence would establish that he was the subject-matter of some assault at the hands of A1 and A2 but what stares us in the face is that the injuries were so minor that the State ought not to have ventured to file an appeal. The main reason for this is because these are very minor altercations that have taken place and ynless the injuries are of some consequence, it would be difficult to categorise the order as being one which merits the High Court spending its time in re-examining the record and disposing off the appeal.

(2.) TIMES without number, we have pointed out to the subordinate Courts before which these cases come up in the first instance that the habit of bending over backwards in favour of the accused and recording acquittals in cases where there is some evidence is not only wrong but will have to be deprecated. If the object of the concerned subordinate judicial officers is directed towards providing additional work for the High Court then, we appreciate their efforts, but the fact of the matter remains that if, despite the repeated warnings from the High Court unjustifiable acquittals are recorded, this Court will be forced to either draw the inference of gross professional negligence on the part of the judicial officer or more importantly that there is an integrity problem or that both the factors are present. The correct course of action would be to accept the prosecution evidence and even if a conviction is recorded, having regard to the nature of the incident and the status of the parties it would be perfectly justifiable for the Trial Courts to take a relatively lenient view where it is warranted and to dispose off the proceeding correctly. This would totally eliminate the need to technically file appeals in a large number of cases that should have ended at the Trial Court itself.

(3.) THE respondents' learned Counsel did vehemently submit before us that p. W. 1 -Mahadevappa has in his evidence stated that he was pulled down from the cart and that the Al and A2 dragged him for a distance of about 20' to 25'. What the learned Counsel has submitted is that it is physically impossible for the victim to have been subjected to this without several injuries having occurred on his body and since the doctor has stated that there were no such injuries particularly on the back that it is very clear that the evidence is false. We are not prepared to accept this submission because it is quite possible that p. W. 1 has only exaggerated a little bit but at the same time, the injuries on other parts of his body as evidenced by the doctor and the wound certificate would establish that the rest of the assaults which have been deposed to by him are in fact established. However, in modification of the order passed by the Trial Court and taking into account the relatively minor nature of the injuries sustained, we convict A1 and A2 of the offence punishable under section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and we direct that each of them shall pay a fine quantified at Rs. 250/- each. The fine amount to be deposited in the Trial Court within 3 months failing which the same to be recovered from the accused. On recovery of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 500/- to be paid to P. W. 1-complainant. With these directions the appeal which partially succeeds to stand disposed off on merits.