LexMANJAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ MANJAPPA -,... A \I, STATEOFKARNATAKA MAY 18, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B t'. Prosecution for causing grievous injury-Concurrent finding and conviction by courts below-Initial sentence of I year imprisonment reduced to 1112 months-Order for compensation to the injured-Accused undergone c imprisonment of I 5 days-In appeal to Supreme Court plea for grant of probation to the accused-Held: Conviction is justified-Probation cannot be granted because the injuries were caused intentionally-However, in view of long lapse of time, sentence of imprisonment reduced to already undergone-Additional compensation of Rs. I 0, 0001- granted-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 360, 361 and 357 (1) (b). D , ,;~ / Charges were framed against the appellant-accused u/ss 323, 325 and 504 IPC. Trial Court acquitting him u/s 504 and convicting him u/ss 323 and 325, sentenced him to imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence u/s 323 and imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence u/s 325. It ordered compensation ofRs.2000/- to the victim out of E the fine amount. -< Appellate court acquitting the accused u/s 323 and convicting him u/s 325, sentenced him to imprisonment of 6 months and imposed additional compensation ofRs.3000/- to the victim. F High Court, in Revision confirmed the conviction u/s 325, but reduced the imprisonment to 11/2 months. It imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/-. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. High Court has reduced substantive sentence to a month and a half. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has undergone and has remained in custody for about fifteen days. Moreover, as on today, he is on --'-I bail. Hence, even though the court is of the view that in the facts and 275 H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. A circumstances of the case, provisions of Section 360 read with Section 361 Cr.P.C. are not attracted and cannot claim benefit of the law laid down by this court, it would not be appropriate now to direct the appellant to surrender and to suffer the remaining sentence for about a month. The incident is of 1997 and about 10 years have passed. (Para 14) [279-E, F) B Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 477, distinguished. 2. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, ends of justice would be met, if it is ordered that the substantive sentence which the appellant has C already undergone is held sufficient It would be appropriate if over and above the amount which the appellant herein has paid towards fine and also towards compensation to the injured victim, the appellant is ordered to pay an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation. [Para 15) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 766 of D 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2006 of the High Court ofKamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1188 of2003. V.N. Raghupathy, Ranjit Thomas, J.P. Tripathi and Ranjay Kumar Ranjit E for the Appellant. Sanjay R. Hedge for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F C.K. THAKKER, J. l. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karantaka at Bangalore on July 20, 2006 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1188 of2003. G 3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on or about July 19, 1997 at about 3.15 p.m., appellant-accused had voluntarily caused simple hurt to complainant-Manju Ramayya Shetty in front of Olaga Mantapa of Murdeshwar. The appellant also said to have assaulted the complainant with a stone resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. Moreover, the · appellant-accused intentionally insulted the complainant by abusing him tit H filthy language thereby giving him provocation knowing full well that such ~ 1\, v ........ MANJAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKER, J.] 277 .. provocation would make the complainant to break public peace or to commit A --,...- other offences. A complaint was filed on July 20, 1997 and after usual investigation, charge was framed against the accused on November 13, 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhatkal for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504, Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Criminal Case No. 2488 of 1997. The accused pleaded 'not guilty' to the charge. B 4. The prosecu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.