DATE: 08/01/2025
BENCH: Justice V Srishananda
FACTS:
A case was registered at Channarayapatna Town Police Station based on an MLC intimation from the Government Hospital, where the complainant, Smt. Nagarathna, alleged that she and her sons were assaulted by the accused over a longstanding property dispute. On April 2, 2018, at around 9:30 p.m., the accused confronted her son Lohith, leading to a quarrel. When the complainant and her other son, Bharath, intervened, they were verbally abused and assaulted. Accused No.1 allegedly struck the complainant and Lohith with a stone, while Accused Nos.3 and 4 also attacked Lohith, with Accused No.3 biting his fingers. The complainant was dragged by Accused Nos.1 and 2, causing her saree to fall off, and Bharath was assaulted when he tried to help. Police arrived and took the injured to the hospital. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under multiple IPC sections, including 307 (attempt to murder), and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
During the trial, 12 prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, injured victims, doctors, and the Investigating Officer, testified, and medical reports corroborated the injuries. The accused denied all allegations, and Accused No.3, Smt. Leelavathi, presented property documents to establish the existence of a civil dispute. However, the Sessions Court convicted the accused based on the evidence, while proceedings against Accused No.4 were abated due to their death. Aggrieved by the conviction, Accused Nos.1 to 3 appealed to the High Court.
ISSUES:
The key issues for consideration in this appeal are: whether the prosecution has successfully proven all the necessary elements to establish the offenses under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC; whether the appellants have demonstrated that the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmities or perversity, warranting interference; and whether the sentence imposed is excessive.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The appeal is allowed in part. While the conviction of the accused under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC is upheld, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court is set aside. Instead, the fine amount for each appellant is enhanced to Rs. 20,000, which must be paid on or before February 10, 2025. In the event of non-payment, the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months.
The Court's reasoning for its decision is based on a careful examination of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The Court observed that the complainant and the accused were involved in a civil dispute and were parties to proceedings in O.S. No. 71/2012. The prosecution successfully established that on April 2, 2018, the accused unlawfully restrained the complainant and her son, assaulted them with a stone, and engaged in verbal abuse. The testimony of the complainant, her two sons, and supporting witnesses, along with the medical evidence and seized material objects, corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court noted that the accused failed to substantiate their defense claim that the case was falsely foisted against them. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated that the accused committed acts that fulfilled the legal requirements for offenses under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the prosecution did not establish the ingredients necessary to convict the accused under Sections 307, 354-B, and 506 of IPC, leading to their acquittal on those charges.
While maintaining the conviction under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, the Court reconsidered the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Noting the absence of prior criminal records and considering that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment due to an ongoing civil dispute, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the imprisonment sentence. Instead, the fine amount was enhanced to Rs. 20,000 for each appellant, with a provision that failure to pay the fine by February 10, 2025, would result in nine months of simple imprisonment. The Court emphasized the principle that criminal justice should focus on punishing the crime rather than the individual and considered the lack of prior offenses in determining a more lenient sentencing approach. This decision ensured justice while balancing the circumstances of the case.
ANALYSIS:
The Court's judgment reflects a balanced approach between upholding the rule of law and ensuring proportionality in sentencing. The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, highlighting that the prosecution had successfully established the essential elements of these offenses through consistent witness testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative materials. The Court rejected the defense's claim that the case was fabricated due to a pre-existing civil dispute, noting that mere production of property documents did not justify the unlawful actions of the accused. However, the Court also found that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold required for conviction under Sections 307, 354-B, and 506 of the IPC, leading to acquittal on those charges. This demonstrates the Court’s adherence to the principle that criminal liability must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and that legal provisions should not be misapplied in the absence of sufficient evidence.
In assessing the sentence, the Court took into consideration mitigating factors such as the absence of prior criminal records, the long-standing civil dispute between the parties, and the spontaneous nature of the incident. Instead of imposing imprisonment, the Court opted for an enhanced fine of ₹20,000 per appellant, with a provision for simple imprisonment only in case of non-payment. This sentencing approach aligns with the judicial principle that punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense while also serving a corrective rather than merely punitive purpose. By replacing imprisonment with a financial penalty, the Court sought to ensure justice without imposing undue hardship on first-time offenders, reflecting a rehabilitative perspective in criminal jurisprudence. The judgment thus reinforces the importance of measured judicial discretion in balancing legal accountability with fairness.
info@adhwaitha.com
