RAJU PANDU TELI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioners were accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC for brevity). According to the complainant, one Mahadev Teli, the petitioners, and his family were related and there was a long-standing dispute between them over their respective lands. It transpires that on 20-5-2003 at about 2 p.m. when the complainant was returning from his land and while passing by the house of the accused, all the accused with ill intention had picked up a quarrel with the complainant and his uncle and hand attacked them with an iron rod, badige and stone, whereby it was alleged that accused 1 had assaulted Bhima Teli with a badige on his left cheek, lower rib and the complainant, on his left-hand. Mahadev Teli was attacked on his right-hand and also on his head. Accused 2 is also said to have assaulted Mahadev Teli with an iron rod on his left hand, head and on his back. Accused 2 had assaulted Mahadevi Teli with a stone on his back and face. Accused 3 had assaulted C.W. 6, the mother of the complainant, with a stone. Accused 4 is said to have restrained Bhima Teli enabling the others to assault him and they were all abused in foul language. As a result of this attack all the injured witnesses having suffered several injuries had initiated criminal proceedings after obtaining medical treatment. On the basis of the complaint, further proceedings were taken by the police and a case had been registered against the accused. On completion of the investigation the petitioners had been charge-sheeted and ultimately when charges were framed the petitioners had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and had got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12a and for the defence-Exs. D. 1 to D. 5 had been marked. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) and after hearing the respective parties the Trial Court had framed the following points for consideration:

(2.) The Trial Court answered Point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and Point Nos. 3 and 4 in the affirmative and on a discussion of the evidence on record had convicted accused 3 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence that having been challenged in appeal, the Appellate Court had confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present revision petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that there was a long-standing dispute, admittedly, between the complainant's family and the petitioners' family and even in the alleged incident there was a case and a counter case. Though the accused, in the case lodged by the petitioners, had been acquitted the fact remains that the altercation was spontaneous and there was no premeditated attack as the quarrel had broken out while the complainant was passing by the house of the accused and he would submit that the manner in which the prosecution has sought to ascribe particular overt acts to each of the accused is not capable of acceptance as the attack even if it were to be accepted could not be recounted with such precision, as to which accused had attacked which particular injured witness. Since the scuffle would have ensued in quick succession and the prosecution seeking to make out a case as if the entire incident had taken place in slow motion, for each witness to record the scene and recount the same in attributing particular overt acts to each of the petitioners, and therefore, would submit that it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In any event the learned Counsel would point out that apart from one grievous injury suffered by P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 each there are no other serious injuries which require the Court to take a strict view in imposing the punishment of imprisonment of two years on petitioners 1 and 2. While imposing a punishment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC insofar as accused 3 is concerned the learned Counsel would submit that as already contended it is difficult to ascribe particular overt acts to each of the petitioners and the punishment imposed on the petitioners therefore is unjust and results in a miscarriage of justice. Accused 4 having been acquitted the benefit of doubt that was extended in favour of the said accused ought to have been extended against all the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, and therefore, seeks reconsideration of the concurrent findings of the Court below.