The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1599 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI. SAYYED MUNAVAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O.B.S. IBRAHIM, R/AT. HUDCO COLONY, KUKKUNDOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574 104. (BY SRI. MUZAFFER AHMED, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PSI KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 16.12.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., KARKALA IN C.C.NO.140/2012 SO ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.6/2015. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.6/2015 dated 23.09.2016 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the
Legal Reasoning
‘First Appellate Court’), whereby the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/State by confirming the judgment in C.C.No.140/2012 dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) and additionally, sentenced the revision petitioner/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follows: On 20.09.2011, PW.1 i.e., complainant-Ashitha was traveling from Mangalore to Karkala by a private bus bearing Regn. No.KA-30-8382, she was seated on a seat reserved for ladies and the accused being a passenger of the said bus was seated behind her in the seat. When the bus neared Anekere of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 Karkala Taluk, at about 8:20 p.m. the accused intentionally touched and tried to outrage her modesty. She immediately raised her alarm and the conductor of the bus i.e., PW.3 and co-passenger-PW.2 intervened and instructed the accused to not indulge in such acts. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before the Karkala Police against the accused as per Ex.P1 on the same day i.e., on 20.09.2011. On the strength of complaint-Ex.P1, the said Police registered an FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC in Crime No.131/2011 dated 20.09.2011 as per Ex.P3. Thereafter, the Investigating Office-PW.7 conducted an investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offence before the Trial Court. On securing the presence of the accused, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and framed the charges against the accused for the said offence and read over the same to him. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the charge before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7and marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to P3. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.6/2015. 5. On comprehensively re-assessing the evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and additionally, to pay the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court. The said judgment is challenged in this revision petition. 6.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Muzaffar Ahmed for the revision petitioner/accused and learned HCGP Sri. Rajath Subrmanya for the respondent-State. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred while convicting the accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and both the Courts below have failed to examine the evidence and the documents placed by the prosecution in right perspective. He further contended that the evidence of PW.1-victim so also PWs.2, 3 and 5 i.e., co-passenger, conductor and the driver respectively are contradicting each other. He submitted that, admittedly the incident is said to have been caused at about 8:20 p.m. and the accused was seated behind the victim. Though the victim raised an alarm that the accused intentionally improperly touched her and thereby outraged her modesty, to prove the said aspect, there is no such sufficient evidence placed by the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, all these witnesses have stated different place of incident. Further, PW.1 in her evidence categorically admitted that she immediately after the incident de-boarded the bus and visited the Police Station, the accused was also brought to the Police Station by other co-passengers. Whereas, PW.2 subsequently, stated in his evidence that he and the complainant-PW.1 accompanied the accused to the Police Station. Both these witnesses have stated different place of incident. According to PW.1, the incident occurred at Krishna - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 Mandira and according to PWs.2 and 3 at Belman. This material contradiction regarding the place of incident in itself takes away the case of the prosecution. He also contended that on perusal of the evidence of PW.3 it could be gathered that even if the incident is caused, the same might have caused accidentally. In such circumstances, the ingredients of Section 354 of IPC does not attract against the revision petitioner/accused. He further contended that PW.3 being the conductor of the bus failed to produce the trip sheet or tickets issued to PWs.1 and 2 and the accused. The prosecution also failed to place prima facie materials to prove that the accused and the victim travelled in the said bus on the date of incident. Further, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred by not appreciating these material aspects. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 8. Refuting the above submissions, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State submitted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court after meticulously examining the record and also the documents, convicted the accused in a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 well-reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference by this Court. He contended that PW.1 categorically stated in her evidence that on the date of incident the accused intentionally outraged her modesty by touching her in a place called Anekere and also at Belman. After she raised alarm, PWs.2 and 3 intervened and handed over the accused to the Police and to that effect PWs.2 and 3 also clearly deposed before the Court. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the sole point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in sentencing the accused for a period of imprisonment for the three months rigorous offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and additionally the conviction and order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court?” 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 11. It could be gathered from the records, though PW.1- victim in her evidence stated that on the date of incident while she was travelling by bus from Mangalore to Karkala, at a place called Belman at about 8:20 p.m., the accused intentionally touched her and thereby outraged her modesty. In her cross-examination she has stated that, initially the incident was said to have committed at Anekere near Krishna Mandira and subsequently at Belman. Further, according to her, after the incident she visited the Police Station and there she saw the accused. Whereas, in her complaint-Ex.P1 she has stated that while she was in the bus, immediately after the incident, the co-passengers of the bus handed over the accused to the Karkala Police. Further, PW.2 the alleged eyewitness i.e., a co-passenger has deposed that the incident occurred at a place called Belman. According to him, after the incident the complainant-PW.1, accused and he together visited to the Police Station and the victim lodged the complaint. Moreover, in the cross-examination of PW.2, it was elicited that there were multiple pending cases against him and that he belonged to an organization that bore ill-will towards the accused’s community. Further, PW.3-conductor of the bus in his chief-examination - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 stated that at about 7:50 p.m. when the bus reached near Belman, the complainan-PW.1 informed him about the accused inappropriately touching her. Thereafter, she informed that the said act was intentionally committed by the accused. As such, they de-boarded the accused and her from the bus. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, the prosecution failed to produce the trip sheet of the bus on the date of incident and also the tickets issued by PW.3 to the passengers including PWs.1, 2 and the accused. Further, PW.3 also admitted in his cross-examination that the bus seat in which the victim and the accused was travelling had a headrest. PW.3 also stated that, immediately after the incident the Police on their own accord visited came to the spot and took the accused to the Police Station. Though PW.4-driver of the bus was examined and deposed in respect of the incident, much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the evidence of PW.4 since he was driving the bus at the time of incident. He subsequently learnt about the incident through PWs.2 and 3. Admittedly, he is a hearsay witness to the incident. The prosecution also examined the mahazar witness- PW.6, the said mahazar on the bus was allegedly drawn at - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 Karkala the following day as per Ex.P2. Hence, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of PW.6. Coming to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the witnesses, admittedly the incident occurred at about 8:20 p.m. and the possibility of accused being seated on the seat reserved for the ladies as admitted by PW.3-conductor and also committing the offence as alleged by PW.1 that too when the seat had headrest cannot be relied upon. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The golden thread which runs through web of criminal justice is that, if two views are possible, the view which favours the accused should be considered while dealing with criminal matters. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, as such the judgment and conviction imposed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. The Revision Petition is allowed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13195 CRL.RP No. 1599 of 2016 ii. The judgment passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala in C.C.No.140/2012 and the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Udupi District at Udupi in Crl.A.No.6/2015 are set-aside. iii. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. iv. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. v. The fine amount if any paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him on due identification. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18