HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Man Who Assaulted Bus Conductor For Issuing Ticket with 'I Love You' Message Overleaf To His Wife [Read Judgment]
Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of one year simple imprisonment handed down to a 26-year-old man who assaulted a bus conductor, for issuing a ticket with 'I Love You', written overleaf to his wife. Justice K N Phaneendra, while setting aside the conviction under section 333 of the Indian Penal Code against, Mahadeva M, said "Due to grave and sudden...
Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of one year simple imprisonment handed down to a 26-year-old man who assaulted a bus conductor, for issuing a ticket with 'I Love You', written overleaf to his wife.
Justice K N Phaneendra, while setting aside the conviction under section 333 of the Indian Penal Code against, Mahadeva M, said "Due to grave and sudden provocation the accused acted in such a manner and assaulted PW2 and caused grievous hurt."
The court convicted the accused under section 335 of Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000. It said "If the fine amount of Rs 5,000 as ordered by the trial court has already been deposited by the accused, out of the said amount a sum of Rs 2,000 shall be taken and remaining amount has to be refunded."
As per the prosecution case, on September 23, 2008 the accused and his wife were travelling in a BMTC bus. The complainant, Umesh was the bus conductor. The accused picked up quarrel with him for flimsy reason and obstructed him from discharging his duty as a public servant. The accused assaulted the conductor and caused fracture of nasal bone.
Advocate A N Radhakrishna appearing for petitioner argued that the material document, bus ticket, which is the harbinger in the case has not been produced by the prosecution. Therefore the case itself falls to the ground and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
Advocate Honnappa appearing for prosecution opposed by saying trial court has in detailed considered oral and documentary evidence and the judgment does not call for interference.
The court said "Accused and complainant were earlier not known to each other and it was a sudden act which has taken place on that particular day. There were no previous bad antecedents alleged against the accused. Therefore in my opinion, instead of sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment it would be suffice if court orders for imposition of fine invoking provisions of section 335 of IPC."
Click here to download the Judgment