BASAGOUDA LAGAMANNA KURNI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were the accused in Criminal Case No.221/2008. According to the complaint they had committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ' I.P.C.' for brevity). It was the case of complainant that one Dundappa Kurni had, on 01.02.2008 at about 1.30 a.m., when the complainant and his son were sleeping at Basaveshwar temple situated outside Awargol village, Hukkeri taluk, within the limits of Hukkeri police station, the present petitioners having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with a common object to assault the complainant and his son, armed with deadly weapons, had attacked the complainant and his son when they were asleep. For the reason that there was a quarrel between the wife of accused No.1 and the complainant over the use of a water channel, which was a common water channel supplying water to the lands of the complainant and the accused. It was alleged that accused No.1 had assaulted the complainant with a club and the remaining accused assaulted the complainant on his right elbow, left leg and right thigh causing severe injuries and when the son of the complainant who was sleeping nearby tried to intervene he was assaulted with a stick on his left leg below the knee, his right leg and head, causing grievous injuries. The accused had threatened the complainant and his son of putting them to death.

(2.) The trial Court answered the same partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with 149 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable punishable under Section 147 read with 149 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with 149 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 149 of I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 149 of I.P.C. and out of the fine amount Rs.2,000/- was to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. This having been challenged in appeal, the Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. It is that which is sought to be questiond in the present revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the Court below has inexplicably acquitted accused Nos. 4 and 5, while convicting the present accused when the evidence against all the accused was identical it is inexplicable that the Court below had thought it fit to segregate the allegations against accused Nos. 4 and 5 in acquitting them. The benefit of doubt ought to have extended to these petitioners as well. It is pointed out that there were no eye witnesses to the incident though P.W.4 Mallappa was cited as an eye witness, it is clear from his evidence that the incident had taken place in total darkness and that there was no identification of any of the accused let alone the petitioners. The benefit extended to accused Nos. 4 and 5 therefore ought not to have been denied insofar as present petitioners are concerned. The finding of the Court below that a heinous crime had been committed and warranted punishment being imposed for every single offence alleged is grossly exaggerated and even going by the injuries that are certified by the medical practitioners except for the fracture of the left leg of the son of the complainant there is no other grievous injury that is made out. The fact that the complainant and his son had sought treatment only on the next day would also point to the fact that there were no serious injuries. Whether the petitioners were the cause for those injuries was to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. On mere suspicion that it may have been the present petitioner No.1 who had quarreled with the wife of the complainant was the only suspicion on which a case had been lodged against the petitioner No.1 and others as they were close associates. Therefore, it is sought to be canvassed that the petitioners being foisted with such serious punishment even though the case had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt results in a mis-carriage of justice.