The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 299 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. KUMARA S/O GANGAHUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SIDRAMANNA S/O GANGAHUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. SRIDHARA S/O GANGAHUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 4. SURESHA S/O GANGAHUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 5. SHIVARAJAKUMAR S/O GANGAHUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BELLIBATTALAHALLI UDIGERE HOBLI TUMAKURU TALK-576 101. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SANTHOSH R. NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 AND: 1. STATE BY
Legal Reasoning
KYATHSANDRA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKURU IN C.C.NO.4183/2012 DATED 22.04.2019 AND THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.28/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU DATED 13.01.2021 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed against petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC and release the accused persons invoking Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 said order is challenged before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and acquitted accused Nos.4 and 6 and confirmed the judgment in respect of other accused persons. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 27.08.2012 at about 8.30 a.m. at Bellibattlahalli Village, Urdigere Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk within the jurisdiction of Kyatasandra Police Station, when C.W.1 was cultivating in the land bearing Sy.No.18/1 and C.W.2 was removing broken twigs of tamarind tree, then all the accused by forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like chopper and clubs started quarrelling with C.W.2. Accused No.1 caused hurt to C.W.2 on his left leg, right thigh and backside of the head using a club. When C.W.1 came to his rescue, accused No.2 caused hurt to C.W.1 on his head, forehead and left finger with chopper. Remaining accused caused hurt to C.W.1 by assaulting with their hands and kicking him with their legs. Based on the complaint, the police have registered he case in Crime No.280/2012 and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 accused persons were secured and they did not plead guilty after taking cognizance and claimed for trial. 4. Hence, the prosecution examined five witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and two material objects as M.Os.1 and 2 and accused was subjected to 313 statement. 5. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as the Investigating Officer, convicted the petitioner as well as the other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the appeal in Crl.A.No.28/2019 and he First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused Nos.4 and 6 on re-appreciation of material available on record. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that there were no other persons present at the time of incident and the evidence of P.W.3 is contrary to the case of the prosecution and he says that he had witnessed the incident and both the Courts failed to take note of this admission and committed an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 error. It is contended that on 27.08.2012, the complainant has given statement in the hospital as an inpatient. But the complainant was present in the Village about 19 kms. away on 28.08.2012 at the time of mahazar and has put his signature as a witness. The counsel would contend that it is highly impossible to be present about 19 kms. distance at the same time. This aspect was ignored by the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. 7. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that P.W.1 was not there at the spot but, he claims that he used to tie cattle in the land of Govindappa. Learned counsel would contend that this admission is very clear that he was not an eye witness and he is an interested witness and also categorically admits in the cross-examination that he was not having agricultural land adjacent to the land of complainant. This evidence was not considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel also vehemently contend that Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.4 in the cross-examination admits that the nature of injuries sustained would be caused even in the motor accident and also admits that C.W.1 did not come to hospital for any treatment and he gave the wound certificate and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 said suggestion was denied. This evidence is also not considered by the Trial Court. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that P.W.2 is brother of P.W.1, who is the complainant and the evidence of these two witnesses is clear that they are brothers and incident has taken place at 8.30 a.m. and immediately, the injured was taken to the hospital and treatment was given and Ex.P2 is clear that P.W.2 had sustained injuries. He would vehemently contend that P.W.4-Doctor evidence coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborates with each other and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and it does not require interference of this Court. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also considering the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in accepting the case of the prosecution that an incident of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 assault has taken place and it requires interference of this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State as well as considering the material on record, the incident has taken place in terms of complaint at Ex.P1 at 8.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that the accused persons assaulted with machete and club. It is important to note that wound certificate is produced only in respect of P.W.1-Jagadeesh, who had sustained injuries. On perusal of evidence of P.W.1, he claims that when he tried to pacify the galata, when the accused were assaulting P.W.2, they assaulted with machete on his head, hand and also on the shoulder and others assaulted with their hands and he gave the complaint in terms of Ex.P1. No doubt, in the cross- examination, it is elicited that there is dispute between both the petitioners and the complainant, P.W.1 categorically admits that at the time of incident, no one was there and also he does not know, who gave M.O.1 to the police, but accused persons brought the same. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 11. The other witness is P.W.2-Harisha. According to the prosecution witness, he was assaulted on his left leg, right leg and also on the head with club. He also says that when his brother P.W.1 tried to pacify the incident, he was assaulted with machete by the accused-Siddaramanna. When witness was subjected to cross-examination, he categorically says that he was assaulted with club, but he claims that he gave wound certificate to the police and the same is not produced before the Court. 12. The other witness is P.W.3. He claims that he also witnessed the incident of assault and police took the statement. But in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that he was not having any land near the land of complainant and also he used to tie cattle belonging to father of P.Ws.1 and 2. No doubt, the prosecution also examined the Doctor, he says that injured went to hospital at 9.30 a.m. and incident has taken place at 8.30 a.m. and he says that this type of injuries could be caused even in the motor accident. The other witness is ASI, who conducted the investigation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 13. Having considered the material on record, this Court has to consider whether there is perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, since the scope of the revision is very limited and if the Court finds that if any perversity in the finding, then only the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Having considered the material on record, particularly Ex.P1, the incident has taken place at 8.30 a.m. and complaint was given on the very same day at 3.30 p.m. and the statement of injured was recorded in the hospital. It is also important to note that Ex.P2-wound certificate disclose that injured went to the hospital within a span of one hour and injuries are found and there were four injuries and out of that, one injury is grievous in nature and others are simple in nature. The Doctor is examined as P.W.4 and he admits that this type of injuries could be caused in the motor accident, however, he categorically says that history was given by the injured and merely eliciting answer that this type of injury could be caused in the accident, question of accepting the same does not arise, since the injured has taken treatment immediately on the same day within a span of one hour of the incident. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 14. No doubt, P.W.3 says that he was not having any adjacent property near the land of complainant, it is also important to note that P.W.1 categorically states that no other persons were present. It is also important to note that P.W.3 categorically admits that he used to tie cattle in the land of father of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the very presence of P.W.3 is doubtful, in view of evidence of P.W.1. However, when the injured witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and P.W.1 categorically says that he was assaulted with machete on his head, hand and shoulder and Ex.P4-wound certificate also categorically says that he had sustained injuries on parietal area i.e., on the head and other injuries near left eye lid, tenderness and pain was found in the left finger and left peri orbital edema was found and injury No.2 is left frontal linear fracture with one inch underlying EDH. 15. When such material is available on record coupled with medical evidence of P.W.4-Doctor and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and convicting the petitioners. However, taking note of the fact that there exists - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 earlier civil dispute between the parties and Trial Court also invoked Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released them on obtaining bond for Rs.20,000/-, when such material is available on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in re-appreciating the material on record and there was no delay in lodging the complaint. It is evident from the records that there was ill-will between the parties prior to the incident and incident has taken place in the morning at 8.30 a.m. and immediately, the injured persons rushed to the hospital and they gave the history that injuries are caused on account of assault made by the accused persons. However, both the Courts lost sight of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.1 in his evidence categorically say that accused No.1 assaulted his brother with club and when he intervened to rescue his brother, accused No.2 assaulted him and P.W.1 says that remaining accused assaulted with their hands and there is an improvement in the evidence of P.W.2 and he says that remaining accused also assaulted with their hands and club on his brother. But, P.W.1 not speaks about assaulting him with club, but he categorically says that accused No.2 assaulted him with machete. Hence, it is clear that it is nothing but - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 implication of other accused persons by saying that they assaulted with their hands. 16. In the case on hand, there is no specific overt act allegation against accused Nos.3, 5 and 7, except saying that they assaulted with hands. When such being the case, the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the same and benefit of doubt is given to other accused persons and overt act allegation is against accused Nos.1 and 2 that they assaulted with club and machete and this fact was not considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. P.W.2 in the cross- examination makes statement that accused persons assaulted with club and even not produced wound certificate in respect of injuries sustained by P.W.2 and only wound certificate is produced in respect of P.W.1. When such being the case, both the Courts lost sight of evidence available on record in respect of other accused persons, when an omnibus statement is made against them and other accused persons are already acquitted by First Appellate Court i.e., accused Nos.4 and 6. Hence, the revision petition has to be allowed in part in respect of other accused persons, except accused Nos.1 and 2. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7560 CRL.RP No. 299 of 2021 Point No.(ii) 17. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The conviction passed against accused Nos.3, 5 and 7 are set aside and they are acquitted for the offences which have been invoked against them. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61