C. R. KARIYAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 05-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
C. R. KARIYAPPA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 325 and 326 – Voluntarily causing
grievous hurt – On facts, appellant-school teacher assaulted a
second class student with wooden stick resulting in loss of eye sight
on the left eye – Acquittal by the trial court on the ground of
contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses, student being tutored
before examination and delay in lodging of FIR – However, the
High Court convicted the appellant u/s. 326 – On appeal, held:
Evidence of the injured student cannot be discarded on the ground
that he was tutored about the occurrence before the examination –
He was apprised about the court’s proceedings as he was not
conversant with the same – There were no contradictions in the
evidence of the eye-witnesses as they were supported by the evidence
of the father of another student – Evidence of eye witnesses was
consistent throughout – However, there being no evidence that the
stick wielded by the appellant was a dangerous weapon, conviction
of the appellant u/s. 326 is not warranted – Thus, the conviction
modified to one u/s. 325 and sentence of imprisonment reduced to
one year – Evidence.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The evidence of PW-2 injured-child witness in
his cross examination stated that the admitted suggestions put
to him by the defence counsel that he was tutored, the same
cannot be the reason for discarding the evidence of PW-2. When
PW-2 was examined in the Court some time after the occurrence,
being a child witness(PW-2) who is not conversant with the court’s
proceedings, has to be necessarily apprised about the court’s
proceedings and that he has to speak about the occurrence. It
cannot be said that he was tutored about the occurrence itself to
depose against the appellant.  [Para 9][153-B-C]
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 150
150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
1.2 The contradiction pointed out between the evidence of
PW-3 and PW-4, who were examined as eye witnesses, do not
affect the version of PW-3 and PW-4 and their credibility, more
so, when their evidence is supported by PW-5 who is father of
another student studying in the same school who has also stated
about the assault by the appellant on PW-2 with the stick and that
PW-2 sat down holding his eye with hands. [Para 10][153-D-E]
1.3 The High Court rightly held that evidence of P.Ws 3 to
5 has been consistent through out. Their evidence is also
supported by the medical evidence of medical officers and doctors.
Upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court rightly reversed
the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant. [Para 11][153-
F]
1.4 Though the stick wielded by the appellant has been
marked as MO1, there is no material to show that the stick that
was wielded by the appellant was a dangerous weapon. In the
absence of such evidence, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 326 may not be warranted; but the offence would fall under
Section 325 IPC, “voluntarily causing grievous hurt”. The
conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is modified to
conviction under Section 325 IPC. Coming to the quantum of
sentence, the occurrence was of the year 1996. Keeping in view
the passage of time and in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one
year with additional fine of Rs.50,000/- . [Paras 12, 13][153-G-H;
154-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
781 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2008 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2001.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay
Desh Pande, Geet Ahuja, Ms. Rachitha Herimath, Advs. for the
Appellant.
 Joseph Aristotle S., Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Shiva P., Ms. Aruna
Hannah Dutta, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advs. for the Respondent.
C. R. KARIYAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment
of the High Court in and by which the High Court has reversed the order
of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. It is an unfortunate case where the appellant working as a
teacher in Rani Chennamma School, Hospet had assaulted PW-2, a
second stand

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.