The High Court · 2017
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 660 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHRUTHI W/O YOGARAJ, AGE: 25 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O THIMMAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, 3. SMT KARIYAMMA W/O LATE OBANNA, AGE: 77 YEARS, PETITIONER 1 TO 3 ARE AGRICULTURAL LABORS AND ALL ARE R/O MUDDAPURA HOSAHATTY VILLAGE, TURUVANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TQ. & DISTRICT-577517. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. B. O. CHANDRA SHEKAR., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TURUVANURU POLICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, REPRESNETED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001. (BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP.) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.995/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AND IN THE CRL.A.NO.74/2017 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA. 03.05.2018 JUDGMENT PASSED DATED THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER Revision petitioners/accused have preferred this revision petition against the Judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in CC No.995 of 2015 dated 07th October 2017,
Legal Reasoning
which is confirmed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2017 dated 03rd May 2018. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that, Turuvanuru police submitted charge-sheet against accused for the offence punishable and Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 504 and 506, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29th November 2014 at about 7.00 am - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR PW1, after washing vessels in front of the house and when she was proceeding to go inside the house with washed vessels, at that time, accused No.1 scolded her in vulgar language stating that PW1 should not go in front of their house and held her tuft and pushed her to the ground. Accused No.2 picked up the stick lying there and assaulted on left side of her head, because of which she sustained internal injuries. All the accused dragged her, assaulted on her back, chest, on her hands and legs. At that time, PW5 came and pacified them. Thereafter, accused told PW1 that they have spared her that day and if they see her crossing their house next time, they would kill her. Thus, the accused have committed the alleged offences. 3. After filing of charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.995 of 2015. Upon receipt of summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and were enlarged on bail. Having heard the arguments on charges, the trial Court framed charges for commission of offence, punishable and Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The same was read over to the accused in the language known to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, eight witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and marked four documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. On closure of prosecution side, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied all the evidences appearing against them, but have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf. The Hospital memo is marked as Exhibit D1 and one stick marked as MO1. 5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections, 323, 324, 341, 354, 504 and 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and passed order on sentence. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused preferred appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2017, which came to be dismissed by Judgment dated 3rd May 2018. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, the accused have preferred the present revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR
Legal Reasoning
6. Sri B.O. Chandrashekar learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that both the Courts below have not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed it before it in its proper perspective. He would submit that Exhibit P3 is the wound certificate issued by PW6 Doctor wherein it is mentioned that only finger marks could be seen on the right side cheek of PW1. Though the wound certificate indicates that PW1 has complained pain in her chest and on the left side of her head, however, the wound certificate does not indicate any injury on the chest or on the head of PW1. Having regard to oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the accused have pushed PW1 to the ground, dragged her and assaulted on her back, stomach, chest, and left side of her head, more injuries should have been inflicted on PW1. He would submit that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. It is the case of the prosecution that the alleged incident took place at 7.00 am on 29th November, 2014, but the complaint came to be registered on 30th November, 2014 at 7.00 pm. The only reason assigned by the PW1 for the delay is that, she was exhausted. However, in the wound certificate-Exhibit P3, there is no - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR indication that the complainant was not in a position to speak. All the witnesses are interested and related witnesses and their testimony cannot be believed without any supporting evidence. The author of the complaint who has recorded the statement of PW1 is not cited as witness and not examined by the prosecution. Absolutely there are no materials to constitute the alleged offences. However, both the Courts have committed an error in passing impugned judgment which is not sustainable in the eye of law and on all these grounds sought to allow the revision petition. 7. As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that absolutely, they are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the point that would arise for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, requires interference in this Revision Petition? 9. I have examined the material placed before this Court. The genesis of the case is the complaint filed by PW1- Boramma. The same reads as under: ºÉýPÉ "¨ÉÆÃgÀªÀÄä UÀAqÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï, 21 ªÀµÀð, £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ d£ÁAUÀ, ºÉÆ®ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸À, ªÀÄÄzÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉƸÀºÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð (vÁ) & (f), ªÉÆ.£ÀA. 9535685723. Date: 30-11-2014 £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29-11-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄĸÀÄgÉ ¥ÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉƼÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À vÀAVAiÀiÁzÀ ±ÀÈw, vÀAzÉ wªÀÄätÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä UÀAqÀ wªÀÄätÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀÈwAiÀĪÀgÀ CfÓAiÀiÁzÀ PÀjAiÀĪÀÄä¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄĸÀÄgÉ ¥ÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉƼÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¯ÉAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß CqÀØUÀnÖzÀªÀgÉà CzÀgÀ°è ±ÀÈwAiÀÄÆ £À£ÀUÉ K£Éà ¨ÉÆøÀÄr, ºÀ¯ÁÌ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, «ÄAqÀæUÁ¼É ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸Áj ºÉüÉÆÃzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄAzÉ NqÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ, £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀÄÄR vÉÆÃj¸À¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀgÀÆ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀªÀgÉà ±ÀÈw £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAUÀÆzÀ®£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr £É®PÉÌ PÉqÀ«PÉÆAqÀ¼ÀÄ, DUÀ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä¼ÀÄ C°èAiÉÄà ©¢ÝzÀÝ MAzÀÄ PÉÆð¤AzÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ M¼À¥ÉlÄÖ ªÀiÁrzÀ¼ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ±ÀÈwAiÀÄ CfÓ PÀjAiÀĪÀÄä, ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀÈw ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ, JzÉUÉ, ¨É¤ßUÉ, PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÉmÁÖUÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉà K£Éà ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸Áj ºÉýzÀgÀÆ, ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÆ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ E°èAiÉÄà £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄAzÉ NqÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ C£ÉÃPÀ ¸Áj zÁjAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ §gÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ £ÉÆêÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊzÁrzÀgÀÄ DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÉÝ£ÀÄ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ eÉÆÃgÁV CAiÉÆåà ¸ÀvÉÛ PÁ¥Ár CAvÀ PÀÆVPÉÆAqÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Àà, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR vÀAzÉ ¤AUÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ dUÀ¼À ©r¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ±ÀÈw, ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä, PÀjAiÀĪÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ ºÉÆÃUÉ ¨ÉÆøÀÄr F ¢£À §zÀÄQPÉÆAqÉ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¸Áj ¹UÀÄ ¤£Àß ¥Áæt vÉUÉAiÀÄzÉ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Àà£ÀÄ 108 DA§Ä¯É£ïìUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà£ÉÆA¢UÉ aQvÉìUÉAzÀÄ avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Áè¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉ vÀAzÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀĸÁÛVzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆðøïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-11-2014 gÀAzÀÄ vÀqÀªÁV «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ F ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ." 10. PW1-Boramma, has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 11. PWs2-Navin Kumar & PW3-Manjunath have deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P2. 12. PW4-Kariyamma, mother of the complainant PW1, has deposed in her evidence as to the assault made by the accused to her daughter. 13. PW5-Sharanappa is the relative of the complainant, who has deposed as to the assault made by the accused. 14. PW6-Dr. H. Pavitra, has deposed as to the examination of the injured and also issuance of wound certificate-Exhibit P3. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR 15. PW7-Manjunath, Investigating officer, has deposed as to the investigation conducted by him. 16. PW8-Chandranna, father of the complainant, is a hearsay witness. 17. According to the case of the prosecution, incident took place on 29th November 2014 at 7.00 am, and the complaint came to be filed on 30th November 2014 at 7.00 pm. The First Information Report-Exhibit P4 was submitted to the Court on 01st December 2014 at 10.00 am. In Exhibit P4-FIR, at column 12, the signature of the complainant has not been obtained. In column No.13, "date and time of dispatch to the Court" is shown as 30th November, 2014 at 19.40 hours, but the learned Magistrate has endorsed that he has received the First Information Report and complaint through PC No.810 of Town Police Station, at 10.00 am on 01st December, 2014. The delay in filing the complaint and the delay in dispatching the First Information Report to the Court, has not been explained by the prosecution. 18. Exhibit P3 is the wound certificate of Boramma, which reveals that she was taken to the District Hospital - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR Chitradurga on 29th November, 2014 and the time is not mentioned therein. PW6 the Medical Officer has found the following injuries on the injured: "finger mark seen on right side of face complaint - chest pain pain over left side of head." 19. Doctor has opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The name of the accused and the weapon used for alleged commission of offence has not been disclosed. PW6 has not explained anything as to the non-mentioning of the name of the accused who have assaulted PW1 and also the weapons used by the accused for assault. Even the place of crime is not shown in the wound certificate. 20. A careful scrutiny of the wound certificate-Exhibit P3 makes it clear that PW1 has suffered only finger marks on her right cheek. Except this, she has not sustained any injury and was examined by Doctor on 29th November 2014. Though PW1 was admitted to hospital on 29th November 2014 with the history of assault, the medical officer has not registered medico-legal case and intimated the same to the jurisdictional police. Investigating officer has also not explained anything as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR to why the PW6-medical officer has not registered the same as MLC. The contents of complaint-Exhibit P1 reveals that accused have assaulted PW1 with stick on the left side of her head and caused internal injuries. Further, all the accused have dragged PW1 and gave blow on her chest, back and also to her hands and legs. If really, the accused had assaulted PW1 as shown in Exhibit P1, PW1 would have sustained severe injuries and abrasions on her back. But, except finger marks on the cheek, the wound certificate does not indicate any other injury. Admittedly, there is enmity between the accused and the complainant regarding the marriage of son of accused No.2 with the complainant. This evidence of PW1 clearly goes to show that PWs1, 4 and 5, who are close relatives, are interested witnesses. This interested testimony of prosecution has not been corroborated by medical evidence and that there is no consistency in the contents of Exhibit P1 and evidence of material witnesses. When there is a previous enmity between the accused and the complainant, it is indeed natural to depose against them exaggeratedly, to see that somehow the accused gets convicted. In the circumstance, without cogent, corroborative and convincing evidence, it is not safe to rely on - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR the interested testimony of PWs1, 4 and 5 which is not consistent with the contents of Exhibit P1-complaint. Hence, the evidence of PWs1, 4 and 5 will create reasonable doubt as to the act of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. Both Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. In view of the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. 21. On re-examination, re-appreciation and re- consideration of the evidence on law and facts, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
O R D E R 1. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed; 2. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07th October, 2017 passed in CC No.995 of 2015 by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga which is confirmed by the I - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22766 CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018 HC-KAR Additional District and Sessions Judge Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2017 vide judgment dated 03rd May, 2018, are set aside; 3. Accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; 4. Fine amount if any in deposit, shall be refunded to the accused in accordance with law; 5. Registry to send the trial Court records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17