& Ors Vs. State of Karnataka  Insc 123 (28 February 2001)
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 3907 of 2000
parties. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 8th June, 2000 by which the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants has
been dismissed. Breifly stated that facts are as follows : On the basis of a
report a complaint for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with
Section 149 IPC was lodged against the Appellants.
investigation a charge sheet was filed against the Appellants. As the offences
were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to
the Court of Sessions. The 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore held the
trial and convicted the 1st Appellant for offences punishable under Section 326
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for one
year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appellants 2 to 4 were convicted under Section
324 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Against the said conviction the Appellants had preferred an Appeal. This has
been dismissed by the impugned Judgment. It is a case of the Prosecution that
on 17th November, 1992 at about 8.20 p.m PW 2 and her sons were watching T.V. in their house
when they learnt that some people were taking photographs of their house. It is
the case of the Prosecution that when PW 3 objected Appellant No. 1 stabbed him
with a knife.
2 to 4 assaulted him with bamboo clubs and iron rod. A report was immediately
lodged at the Police Station.
was referred to the Victoria hospital where he was examined by Doctor, i.e. PW
7. Thereafter PW 3 was removed to Bangalore Nursing Home where he was examined
by another Doctor, i.e. PW 4. The Prosecution examined the eye witnesses i.e. PWs
2 to 5. PW 3 was the injured witness.
Prosecution also examined Doctors i.e. PW 4 & PW 7 and proved the injuries.
The Prosecution had also produced the weapons. The trial court as well as the
Appellate Court considered the entire evidence and have come to the conclusion
that the guilt of the accused have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It
must also be mentioned that the Appellants had also filed a cross complaint
against the prosecution witnesses. That complaint was also committed to the
same Court and both the trials had taken place simultaneously. The trial court
had also delivered a judgment in this cross complaint by which the prosecution witnesses
in this case were acquitted. Against that acquittal no appeal has been filed by
anybody. We have heard the parties. We have examined the evidence. We are of
the opinion that the Prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Appellants had attacked and caused injuries to PW 3. In that view of the matter
the conviction will have to be upheld. However, it has been pointed out to us
that Appellant No. 3 has already expired, Appellants 2 and 4 have already
served out their sentence. Reliance has been placed upon medical Certificate
from St. Martha's Hospital, Bangalore,
which shows that Appellant No. 1 is suffering from Prolapsed Disc and has a
degenerated and fragmented fibro-cartilagenous material which has resulted in
60% disability in both lower limbs. Appellant No. 1 is also a Diabetic and
suffering from acute Bronchitil attacks.
Certificate show that he is unable to attend to his normal physiological
activities. We have also seen that his wife has deserted him and he has two
small children with an aged mother. In our view it will be sufficient if the
sentence of Appellant No. 1 is reduced to that already undergone by him. We
therefore direct that the Appellant No. 1 be forthwith released unless he is
required in some other case.