C.R.KARIYAPPA V STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2009 Decided on 05/09/2018

BENCH: A two-judge bench of the Apex Court decided this case, headed by:-

• JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
• JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

FACTS: The appellant was a teacher in Rani Chennamma School; Hospet had assaulted a second standard student, with wooden stick for not wearing uniform shoes resulting in injury to the left eye and was taken to the hospital where she had 2 surgeries but there was loss of eye-sight on the left eye. Her father lodged a complaint, after 25 days, against the teacher and the Trial Court acquitted the appellant saying that there were contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses and the student was tutored before he was examined in the witness box and therefore, his evidence could not be considered for conviction and the delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR was also considered.

Respondent approached the High Court where the order of acquittal was reversed and convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.

As a result appellant approached the Supreme Court by the way of appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

• The High Court was not correct on deciding the correctness of the conviction under Section 326 and the nature of the offence.
• The victim was tutored before his examination.
• Contradictions were there in the evidences of the eye-witnesses.

OBSERVATIONS: The Supreme Court observed that:

• The child wasn’t tutored before his examination as he being a child witness was not conversant with the court’s proceedings had to be necessarily apprised about the court’s proceedings and that he had to speak about the occurrence.
• 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” as there was no evidence to show that the stick, which was wielded by the appellant, was a dangerous weapon.
• There were no contradictions in the evidences of the eye-witnesses as they were supported by the evidence of the father of another person. All the evidences support the occurrence of the act.  

CONCLUSION: The court partly allowed the appeal in a way that the conviction of the appellant u/s 326 IPC 5 was modified to conviction u/s 325 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year, for which he had to surrender within a period of four weeks failing which the appellant shall be taken to custody, and fine of Rs.50,000/- was imposed in addition as compensation to the injured. Therefore, the appellant shall further undergo imprisonment of three months. The period of sentence of imprisonment, if any, the appellant had already undergone shall be set off.

For full judgement refer: 

[embeddoc url=”https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/31581/31581_2008_Judgement_05-Sep-2018.pdf” download=”logged”]