Karnataka High Court Adjudicates Cross Revision Petitions Against Conviction and Sentence in IPC Sections 341, 326 Case. State Seeks Enhancement of Sentence While Accused Seeks Acquittal.

Criminal revision petitions challenging conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In Crl.R.P.306/2013, the State seeks enhancement of sentence from one year to three years rigorous imprisonment; in Crl.R.P.1186/2012, the accused seeks acquittal.

The State is aggrieved by the Sessions Court's reduction of sentence; the accused challenges the upholding of conviction.

The trial Court convicted accused No.1 for offences under Sections 341 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine; the Sessions Court in appeal upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment.

Whether the Sessions Court's judgment in Criminal Appeal No.81/2007 suffers from illegality, irregularity, perversity or error warranting acquittal of the accused under Sections 341 and 326 IPC? Whether the reduction of sentence from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC warrants interference? What order?

After hearing the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the points that arise for my consideration in this revision petition are: (i) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court in Criminal Appeal No.81/2007 suffers with any illegality, irregularity, perversity or error, as such, deserves to be set aside and the accused No.1 Sri Sachu @ Sathish deserves to be acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court in Criminal Appeal No.81/2007, dated 16.11.2012, in reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? Both these witnesses were subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side, wherein, the witnesses adhered to their original version and did not allow the defence counsel to weaken their evidence given in their examination-in-chief.

On 24.05.1998, an incident of assault occurred near the service bus stand in Udupi. An injured was taken to K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal. On 25.05.1998, a medical intimation was sent and a complaint was recorded, leading to registration of Crime No.92/1998 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 109 read with Section 149 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against three accused for offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 109 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial in C.C.No.4846/2003 before the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Udupi, resulted in a judgment on 18.06.2007, convicting accused No.1 under Sections 341 and 326 IPC and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 appealed in Criminal Appeal No.81/2007 before the Sessions Judge, Udupi, who on 16.11.2012 dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment. The State filed Crl.R.P.306/2013 seeking enhancement of sentence, and the accused filed Crl.R.P.1186/2012 seeking acquittal. The High Court heard the revisions on 28.03.2023 and pronounced the common order on 13.04.2023.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 341, 326, 109, 34