Shri
A.C. Gangadhar Vs. State of Karnataka
[1998] INSC 250 (28
April 1998)
G.T.
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar Nanavati. J
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
29TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998 Present:
Hon 'ble
Mr. Justice G.T.Nanavati Hon 'ble Mr. Justice S.P.Kurdukar Mr . Naresh Kaushik
and Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and
Mr.M. Veerappa, Advocates for the respondents.
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
The
appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under
Section 326 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month and to pay a
fine of Rs.1000/-. Not satisfied with the conviction and sentence the appellant
filed an appeal along with other convicted accused to the High Court. State had
also filed appeal against the acquittal of all the accused and for enhancement
of sentence of appellant. The High Court confirmed the conviction under Section
326 and enhanced the sentence from one month to one year. The appellant has,
therefore, approached this Court a challenging the order of sentence and also
his conviction.
What
has been proved against the appellant is that he caused an injury with an axe
on the head of P.W. 5. The evidence of P.W. 5 has been believed by both the
courts and it also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. We find on good
reason not to accept the finding recorded by the courts below confirm the
conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC. The nature of the injury
indicates that blow must have been given by A.1 with great force on the
forehead of P.W. 5 as it had caused a fracture. Therefore, the conviction to
the appellant under Section 326 is quite proper. Considering the nature of
injury caused to P.W. 5 we do not think that the sentence imposed upon the
appellant can be said to be excessive.
The
learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that even if it is
believed that A.1 had caused grievous hurt he could not have been held guilty
either under Section 326 or for any other offence as the said injury was caused
by him in excise of right of private defence. Both the courts have come to the
conclusion that the accused and his companions were the aggressors and that too
because they protested against the accused cutting the tree. Therefore, there
was no scope for giving any benefit of right of private defence to the
appellant. We, therefore, 300 no reason to interfere with the order passed by
the High Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The appellant was
released on bail during the pendency of the appeals. His bail is cancelled. He
is ordered to surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of
the sentence.
Back