# C. R. KARIYAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

- **Citation:** [2018] 11 S.C.R. 150
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-09-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2009
- **Bench:** R. Banumathi, Indira Banerjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/c-r-kariyappa-v-state-of-karnataka-32238
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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][153F]
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]

## Text

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][153F]
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 standard student, with wooden stick for not wearing uniform
shoes resulting in injury to the left eye of the said student. The injured
PW-2 was taken to the hospital at Hospet and, thereafter, taken to the
M.M. Joshi Hospital at Hubli where PW-2 had undergone surgery twice.
In spite of the treatment, there was loss of eye-sight on the left eye of
PW-2. On the complaint lodged by PW-1 who is father of PW-2, law
was set in motion.
3. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution,
the Trial Court acquitted the appellant holding that there are contradictions
in the evidence of eye witnesses viz. PW-3 and PW-4. The Trial Court
also observed that the injured child (PW-2) was tutored before he was
examined in the witness box and therefore, the evidence of child witness
(PW-2) can not form the basis for conviction. The Trial Court also held
that eye witnesses viz. PW-3 and PW-4 are related to PW-1 and that
there was delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR and on those findings, the
trial Court acquitted the accused-appellant.
4. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted
the appellant as stated in para 1.
5. We have heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S.Patil, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has taken
us through the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that the Trial
Court has rightly taken note that PW-2 injured child witness was tutored
and that evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is fraught with contradiction and
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and while so the High
Court erred in reversing the order of acquittal.
7. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the inordinate
delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR was rightly considered as fatal to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
prosecution case. Learned senior counsel urged that when the conclusion
arrived at by the trial court was a plausible view, based upon the evidence,
the High Court was not right in reversing the order of acquittal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned
judgment of the High Court and submitted that based upon the evidence,
the High Court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused.
9. 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, in our considered view, 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.
10. So far as contradiction pointed out between the evidence of
PW-3 and PW-4 who were examined as eye witnesses, as observed by
the High Court those contradictions 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.
11. The High Court has 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 PW-13 Doctor Guruprasad, the medical officer, in
the hospital at Hospet; PW-14 (H. Neelakantha Swamy) - lecturer in
Bellary Medical College and PW-16 (Dr.S.R. Kotekar) medical officer
in the Government Hospital at Hospet. Upon appreciation of evidence,
the High Court has rightly reversed the order of acquittal and convicted
the appellant.
12. The only question falling for consideration is the correctness
of the conviction under Section 326 and the nature of the offence. 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.
13. In the absence of such evidence, in our view, the conviction of
the appellant under Section 326 may not be warranted; but the offence
C. R. KARIYAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
would fall under Section 325 IPC, "voluntarily causing grievous hurt".
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 present case, the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to one year with additional fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand).
14. The conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is
modified to conviction under Section 325 IPC. The sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to one year. Additionally fine of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) is imposed. In default, the appellant shall further
undergo imprisonment of three months. The period of sentence of
imprisonment, if any, the appellant has already undergone shall be set
off.
15. The fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) shall
be paid as compensation to the injured PW-2.
16. The appeal is partly allowed.
17. The appellant shall surrender within a period of four weeks
from today failing which the appellant shall be taken to custody to serve
out the remaining sentence.
Nidhi Jain
 Appeal partly allowed.