Shri A.C. Gangadhar Vs. State of Karnataka
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 718-19 of 1991
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of Karnataka High Court in Crl. A. No. 627/87 and 41/88)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of Karnataka High Court in Crl. A. No. 627/87 and 41/88)
Petitioner: Shri A.C. Gangadhar
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 718-19 of 1991
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of Karnataka High Court in Crl. A. No. 627/87 and 41/88)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of Karnataka High Court in Crl. A. No. 627/87 and 41/88)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Mr. M. Veerappa, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Section 386, 378, 374 – Sentence – Offence under Section 326 I.P.C. – Trial Court imposing sentence of one month and fine of Rs. 1000/- – On appeal, sentence enhanced to one year – Blow on head with axe with force, causing fracture. Held that sentence of one year imprisonment was proper. (Para 2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 100 – Private defence – Right of – Accused and his com-panions, found to be aggressors and starting the assault as victim party objecting to cutting of trees by them. Held that there was no scope for giving benefit of right of private defence. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J. :
1. 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. The 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, there-fore, approached this Court challenging the order of sentence and also his conviction.
2. 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 cor-roborated by the medical evidence. We find no good reason not to accept the finding recorded by the courts below and 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 frac-ture. Therefore, the conviction of 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 appell-ant can be said to be excessive.
3. 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 exer-cise of right of private defence. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the accused and his companions were the aggressors and had started the assault on the deceased (sic) and his children 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, see 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 ap-peals. His bail is cancelled. He is ordered to surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sen-tence.
1. 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. The 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, there-fore, approached this Court challenging the order of sentence and also his conviction.
2. 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 cor-roborated by the medical evidence. We find no good reason not to accept the finding recorded by the courts below and 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 frac-ture. Therefore, the conviction of 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 appell-ant can be said to be excessive.
3. 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 exer-cise of right of private defence. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the accused and his companions were the aggressors and had started the assault on the deceased (sic) and his children 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, see 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 ap-peals. His bail is cancelled. He is ordered to surrender to custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sen-tence.
