STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVAPPA DUNDAPPA ITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal assailing the acquittal of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as also for enhancement of the punishment awarded to original accused No. 3. This Court has dismissed the State appeal as against A-1 and 2 and consequently we are only concerned with the question of enhancement of sentence awarded to A-3.

(2.) THE incident in question took place at about 9. 30 p. m. at a place called Kadapatti cross and the prosecution alleges that the complainant who is PW 1 was proceeding on his motor cycle when the accused stopped him and picked up a fight with him. The allegation against the accused are that A-1 and 2 were angry with PW 1 because he had filed some complaint in which they were involved and as far as A-3 is concerned, there appear to have been some background because PW 1 in his capacity as Chairman of the Education Society is alleged to have taken some action against the uncle of A-3. According to PW 1, the accused gave expression to these aspects of the case and A-1 and 2 assaulted him with their hands, but as far A-3 is concerned, he is supposed to have stabbed PW 1 twice, once on his back and once on his thigh. PW 1 further alleges that PW 2 Ningappa Navi came to intervene and that PW 2 also sustained an injury at the hands of A-3. PW 1 lodged a written complaint with the police in respect of this incident and the police arrested the accused and charged them for having committed the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Sec. 34, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur acquitted A-1 and A-2 but held that A-3 had committed an offence punishable under Section 325, IPC and directed that he should pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default to undergo two months R. I. A-3 has not appealed against this sentence but the State has come up to the High Court for enhancement and it is only this aspect of the matter with which we are concerned.

(3.) THE learned Additional SPP has prefixed his submissions by pointing out that there is an aspect of immense seriousness involved in this case in so far as PW 1 is an Advocate and he states that the Court must take an extremely rigorous view of any situation in which violence is directed against a member of the Bar either by a litigant or even any member of the public. He had demonstrated that in this case there is a direct nexus between the attack on PW 1 and his professional duties in so far as PW 1 had lodged a complaint involving A-1 and 2 and he had also taken certain action against the uncle of A-3. The learned Addl. SPP also points out that apart from a few minor blemishes, that the evidence of PW 1 fully establishes the assault, that this is supported by the evidence of PW 2, and that the medical evidence corroborates this testimony. Heavy reliance is placed on the opinion of the Doctor who eventhough has stated that the actual injuries were not of a serious nature as pointed out that had the knife penetrated straight, that it would have killed PW 1. The learned Addl. SPP therefore submits that A-3 must be convicted under Section 307, IPC and having regard to the fact that it was an attack on an Advocate that a deterrent sentence must be awarded.