http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 250  of  2001 Special Leave Petition (crl.)   3907     of  2000

PETITIONER: R.  SEETHARAM & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/02/2001

BENCH: S.N.Variava, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       J U D G M E N T S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     Leave granted.  Heard parties.  This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 8th June, 2000 by which the Criminal Appeal filed  by the Appellants has been dismissed.  Breifly stated that  facts  are  as follows :  On the basis of a  report  a complaint  for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC was lodged against the Appellants. After  investigation  a charge sheet was filed  against  the Appellants.  As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court  of  Sessions, the same was committed to the Court  of Sessions.  The 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore held the  trial  and  convicted the 1st  Appellant  for  offences punishable  under  Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code  and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine  of Rs.1,000/-.  Appellants 2 to 4 were convicted under Section  324  I.P.C.  and were sentenced to  undergo  simple imprisonment  for three months.  Against the said conviction the  Appellants  had  preferred an Appeal.   This  has  been dismissed  by  the impugned Judgment.  It is a case  of  the Prosecution  that on 17th November, 1992 at about 8.20  p.m.@@                                          JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ PW  2  and her sons were watching T.V.  in their house  when@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ they  learnt  that  some people were taking  photographs  of their house.  It is the case of the Prosecution that when PW 3  objected  Appellant  No.   1 stabbed him  with  a  knife. Appellants  2 to 4 assaulted him with bamboo clubs and  iron rod.  A report was immediately lodged at the Police Station. PW  3  was  referred to the Victoria hospital where  he  was@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ examined by Doctor, i.e.  PW 7.  Thereafter PW 3 was removed to  Bangalore Nursing Home where he was examined by  another Doctor,  i.e.   PW  4.   The Prosecution  examined  the  eye witnesses  i.e.  PWs 2 to 5.  PW 3 was the injured  witness. The  Prosecution also examined Doctors i.e.  PW 4 & PW 7 and proved  the injuries.  The Prosecution had also produced the weapons.   The  trial court as well as the  Appellate  Court considered  the  entire  evidence  and   have  come  to  the conclusion  that  the guilt of the accused have been  proved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

beyond  a reasonable doubt.  It must also be mentioned  that the  Appellants had also filed a cross complaint against the prosecution witnesses.  That complaint was also committed to the  same  Court  and  both   the  trials  had  taken  place simultaneously.   The  trial  court  had  also  delivered  a judgment  in  this cross complaint by which the  prosecution witnesses  in  this  case   were  acquitted.   Against  that acquittal  no  appeal  has been filed by anybody.   We  have heard  the parties.  We have examined the evidence.  We  are of  the  opinion  that the Prosecution has proved  beyond  a reasonable doubt that the Appellants had attacked and caused injuries to PW 3.  In that view of the matter the conviction will have to be upheld.  However, it has been pointed out to us  that Appellant No.  3 has already expired, Appellants  2 and  4 have already served out their sentence.  Reliance has been  placed  upon  medical Certificate from  St.   Martha’s Hospital,  Bangalore,  which shows that Appellant No.  1  is suffering  from  Prolapsed  Disc and has a  degenerated  and fragmented  fibro-cartilagenous material which has  resulted in  60% disability in both lower limbs.  Appellant No.  1 is also a Diabetic and suffering from acute Bronchitil attacks. The  Certificate  show  that he is unable to attend  to  his normal physiological activities.  We have also seen that his wife  has deserted him and he has two small children with an aged  mother.   In  our view it will be  sufficient  if  the sentence  of  Appellant  No.  1 is reduced to  that  already undergone  by  him.  We therefore direct that the  Appellant No.   1 be forthwith released unless he is required in  some other case.