MOHAMMED GOUSE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad in S.C.No.80/2004 convicting the appellant of the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- indefault to undergo further SI for a period of one month and further sentencing to undergo SI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- indefault to undergo SI for one month for the offence under Section 504 IPC with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant was charge sheeted by the Sub-urban Police Station, Dharwad on the allegation that on 2.7.2001 at about 2.45 p.m. being a driver of Maxi Cab bearing Regn.No.KA- 25/A-1213 had carried accused No.2, who is a juvenile offender in his vehicle and thereafter they went towards the Miskeen Photo Studio, Jubilee Circle, Dharwad and overtook a KSRTC., bus bearing Regn. No.KA-28/F-870 and since the driver of the said bus stopped the vehicle at red signal, the accused quarrelled with the said driver and abused him in a filthy language in order to commit breach of peace and thereafter he assaulted the driver of the bus by means of an iron rod. Thereafter, the juvenile offender assaulted the driver by means of an iron rod and the appellant assaulted by means of hand in order to cause his death, thereby they are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 504, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It is also further alleged that accused No.1 has assaulted the driver of the bus, who is a public servant and caused him simple injuries, thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 332 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) On appearance of the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the plea of the accused, thereafter in order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and produced MOs.1 and 2. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the impugned Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 332 of IPC while convicting him for the offences under Sections 323 and 502 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the appellant has filed this appeal. Since the appellant was not represented by any Counsel, this Court has appointed Sri Mohan Kumar as amicus curiae and I have heard Sri Mohan Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and also Sri Vinayak S.Kulkarni, learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent/State.