Case Note & Summary
The criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners/accused challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2011 passed by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Crl.A.No.50/2010, which partly allowed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, Nanjanagud in C.C.No.456/2008. The factual matrix is that on 20.10.2007 at around 8.30 p.m., when the complainant Ramakrishna was returning to his house, the accused persons came there; accused No.1 caught hold of the complainant, accused No.2 assaulted him with an iron rod on his left hand, and accused No.3 assaulted him with an iron tap-pipe on his left shoulder, back, and right leg. When the complainant screamed, CW.2 D.K.Suresh and CW.3 Mahesh intervened and rescued him. The complainant later learned that the assault was because his junior paternal uncle's son Manju had married Gowramma, which the accused resented. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 324, 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence but maintaining the conviction. The legal issues considered were whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse or illegal, and whether the revision petition under Section 397 CrPC should be entertained. The petitioners argued that the trial court and appellate court erred in convicting them based on insufficient evidence, and that the complainant's version was not credible. The respondent/State argued that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that PW-1 (complainant), PW-2 (D.K.Suresh), and PW-3 (Mahesh) consistently testified about the incident, and PW-4 (doctor) confirmed the injuries through wound certificate Ex.P4. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on credible evidence and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence as modified by the appellate court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397(1) CrPC - Scope of Revision - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court; interference is warranted only if there is a patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. Held that the concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence do not call for interference (Paras 10-12).
B) Indian Penal Code - Assault - Sections 324, 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction - The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons assaulted the complainant with iron rod and iron tap-pipe, causing simple injuries. The testimony of eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) and medical evidence (PW-4, wound certificate Ex.P4) corroborated the incident. Held that the conviction is sustainable (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction by the trial court and the first appellate court warrant interference in revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence as modified by the first appellate court.
Law Points
- Revision under Section 397 CrPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of revision
- credibility of eyewitnesses
- medical evidence corroboration
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 341 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (11) 3
Criminal Revision Petition No. 605/2011
P. Nataraju (for petitioners), Thejesh P. (HCGP for respondent)
Venkatesh, Madaiah, Viswanath
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 324, 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners/accused sought to set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and the trial court, and to be acquitted.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were convicted by the trial court and their appeal was partly allowed by the first appellate court, maintaining conviction but modifying sentence. They filed revision challenging the conviction.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the accused in C.C.No.456/2008 on 31.03.2010. First appellate court partly allowed Crl.A.No.50/2010 on 21.01.2011, modifying sentence but upholding conviction.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below are perverse or illegal, warranting interference in revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 324, 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the trial court and appellate court erred in convicting them based on insufficient and contradictory evidence, and that the complainant's version was not credible.
Respondent/State argued that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and medical evidence of PW-4, and that the concurrent findings should not be disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court under Section 397 CrPC cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court; interference is warranted only if there is a patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The concurrent findings of fact based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence do not call for interference.
Judgment Excerpts
This criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners/accused challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2011 rendered by the Court below in Crl.A.No.50/2010 partly allowing the appeal which was filed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.456/2008 dated 31.03.2010.
The factual matrix of the petition is that on 20.10.2007 at around 8.30 p.m. when the complainant – Ramakrishna was returning to his house from new site and when he reached Ramamandir in the village, the accused persons came there and accused No.1 caught hold the complainant, accused No.2 assaulted him with an iron rod on his left hand and accused No.3 assaulted him with a Iron tap-pipe on his left shoulder, back and right leg.
The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court; interference is warranted only if there is a patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, Nanjanagud) convicted the accused in C.C.No.456/2008 on 31.03.2010. The accused appealed to the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Crl.A.No.50/2010, which partly allowed the appeal on 21.01.2011, modifying the sentence but maintaining the conviction. The accused then filed the present criminal revision petition under Section 397(1) CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed on 11.11.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 324, 323, 341, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 397(1)
