KESHAVA K. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.06.2005 in C.C. No. 10/2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC at Sullia and confirmed by the judgment dated 17.11.2011 in Crl.A. No. 196/2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. On 3.8.2004 PW. 1 demanded repayment of loan amount from accused no. 2. At that time, there was a quarrel between PW. 1 and accused -2. All of a sudden accused no. 1 hit PW. 1 with a torch on the head causing injury and on the face causing grievous hurt resulting in fall of two tooth. Further it is alleged that accused 2 and 3 restrained PW. 1. Consequently the jurisdictional police registered a case against accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 326, 324 r/w 34 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was filed for the above offences. The trial Court framed charges. The prosecution examined five witnesses as PW. 1 to PW. 5 and got marked Ex. P1 to P7 and M.O.1 to M.O.4. After hearing arguments, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

(2.) ON appreciation of evidence on record, the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the common intention of all the accused in restraining PW. 1. Further it is held that prosecution has failed to prove that accused 2 and 3 committed an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 504 IPC. But the trial Court held that prosecution has proved and established the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Consequently, under the impugned judgment the trial Court convicted accused 1 and 2 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ - for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 20 days. Accused No. 3 was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offences punishable under Section 324 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 10 days. Further accused 1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offences punishable under Section 326 IPC. Accused no. 3 is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offences punishable under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 3 filed appeal in Crl.A. No. 196/2005 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Putur. Accused no. 2 had undergone the sentence and he has not filed any appeal. The lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the entire material on record held that the conviction and sentence against accused no. 3 as bad in law and consequently he has been acquitted. But the conviction and sentence of the trial Court in so far as accused no. 1 is concerned was affirmed by the lower appellate Court under the impugned judgment. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) THE only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is whether the conviction and sentence of accused no. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 324 and 326 IPC is in accordance with law?