The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KOTTAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, MADIBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. BY IJOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. J. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, R/AT KOTTAGARA HALLI, MADABAL HOBLI-561 201 MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT PRESENT ADDRESS: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF BLOCK EDUCATION SOUTH ZONE-2 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 POORNAIAH CHOULTRY BUILDING NEAR UPPARPET POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 009. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
But, having considered the material on record, benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the accused, since there was a rivalry between both C.W.1 and accused from 1979 and also taken note of vengeance between both of them. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
Arguments
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE BY HASMATH PASHA & ASSOCIATES FOR R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2016 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.3/2014 BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED FROM THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC JUDGMENT OF AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ACQUITTAL DATED 03.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL IN C.C.NO.20/2006 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE PRESENT THE CRIMINAL REVISION RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC. JMFC COURT, RAMANAGARA PETITION AND CONVICT JUDGE AND THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution before the Trial Court based on the complaint given by the revision petitioner is that a case is registered, wherein an allegation is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 made that on 07.11.2005, C.W.1 came to the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagaram to give evidence in C.C.No.17/1996 and after giving evidence at 3.45 p.m., when he was going outside the Court near Forest Office, the accused intimidated the complainant to end his life by causing accident with a car, since he had given evidence against the accused. Therefore, complaint was given by C.W.1 and invoked offence under Section 506 IPC, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. 3. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused denied the charges. Hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5, P.W.1 is the complainant, P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses and P.Ws.4 and 5 are the Investigating Officer, who have received the complaint and investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet. 4. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also P.Ws.4 and 5, P.W.3 is an eye witness, who turned hostile, comes to the conclusion that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and complaint was given on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 next date and also comes to the conclusion that there were dispute between them from 1979 onwards and cases were registered. The Trial Court in paragraph No.21 comes to the conclusion, if that were be the fact, the complainant would have immediately lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police. In this case, there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint and the same affects the case of the prosecution. If the threat were to be so alarming of notice of any subsequent danger, such a long period of 9 years would not have lost without any such serious consequences and also comes to the conclusion that though P.W.1 was eye witness to the incident, at the first instance, he says that he does not know the reason for alleged threat and later the complainant says that he gave the evidence before the Court against the accused and hence, the alleged threat was made. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed that they are relatives with each other, the genealogical tree produced by the accused states that P.W.2 is cousin of P.W.1. Further, P.W.2 has deposed that he does not know either the name of his grand-father or grand-mother which cannot be believed in the ordinary course.This raises some suspicion about the trustworthiness of P.W.2. Hence not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and acquitted the respondent/accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.3/2014. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5, in paragraph No.19 comes to the conclusion that delay is not explained by the prosecution and hence, the same is fatal to the case of prosecution. However, the State has contended that delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and on that basis, the accused cannot be acquitted. This contention of the State is in accordance with settled proposition of law. Therefore, delay cannot be made as a ground for the acquittal of the accused. From careful appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that, mere uttering of words is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Hence, the Trial Court has appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in proper perspective and comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 the Trial Court and confirmation of the First Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this petition is that both the Courts failed to take into consideration the explanation given by P.W.1 for delay in filing the complaint in his evidence, but said explanation is not at all discussed or relied upon, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The counsel would vehemently contend that the respondent No.2/accused was the accused in the cases filed by the appellant and accused has criminally intimidated the appellant/complainant is the sound reason for the offence committed by the accused. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, but both the Courts discarded the evidence of P.W.2, merely because he is a relative of P.W.1, placing reliance on a self-serving genealogical tree produced by the accused. Hence, very approach of both the Courts is erroneous and it requires interference. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused would contend that both the Courts have taken - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 note of the material on record and the fact that there is a dispute between both the accused and C.W.1 from 1979 onwards is not disputed and cases are also registered is not disputed and motive is alleged dispute between both of them. It is the specific case that there was a case and C.W.1 went and gave evidence and while returning, he was subjected to threat. Though P.W.2 was examined, at the first instance, he has given the evidence that he is not aware of the same, but later he has given the evidence that, since the complainant gave the evidence against the accused, the alleged threat was caused. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 evidence is an improvement and not credible. Apart from that, he is a relative of P.W.1 and his evidence is considered by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 8. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 were present at the time of incident and their evidence corroborates with each other and the complainant has not given the complaint immediately after the incident and complaint was given on the next day and though the same is not an inordinate delay and explanation is also not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 given for the delay and both the Courts have committed an error and it requires interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also taking note of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in passing an order of acquittal and the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the same and the reasoning given by both the Courts suffers from its legality and correctness and whether it requires interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 10. Having heard learned for respective parties and also on perusal of material on record, it is not in dispute that petitioner has filed the complaint before the respondent No.1- Police and case has been registered for the offence under Section 506 IPC. It is also the case of the complainant that, when he had returned from the Court, after giving evidence, he - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 was threatened by the accused that he is going to take away his life and at that time, P.W.2 was present along with him and the same was witnessed by him. It is also not in dispute that there was delay of one day in lodging the complaint, since the incident has taken place on the previous day and complaint was given next day evening and having taken note of complaint at Ex.P1, the delay has not been explained, but only reason is stated that he has given the complaint belatedly, but no reason for what made to give the complaint with delay of more than 24 hours, no reason is assigned and only narrated the incident stating that there is delay of 24 hours. 11. No doubt, both the Courts have taken note of the delay in lodging the complaint, it is also important to note that P.W.1categorically admits that there is a dispute betweenthe accused and the complainant from 1979 onwards. It is also not in dispute that case was filed against the respondent-accused and at the first instance, he was convicted and thereafter, the same was challenged and matter was also remanded to the Trial Court and in view of remanding the matter, he went and gave the evidence on the previous day of the case. According to P.W.1, the witness P.W.2 was very much present and P.W.2 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 is friend of P.W.1. It is also important to note that when he was examined, he said that he is not aware of the reason for causing threat, but immediately he stated that because the complainant gave the evidence against the accused, life threat was caused. It is also important to note that P.W.2 was present along with P.W.1 and what prevented him from giving the complaint on the very same day, no explanation, since P.W.2 is also a person having the knowledge of Court affairs and also lodging of complaint, immediately he would have gone to the station, when he was threatened on account of giving the evidence before Court, but not lodged the complaint. Apart from that, when P.W.2 noticed causing of incident, at the first instance, he denies, but immediately he says that because the complainant gave the evidence, he was threatened. When such being the case, taking note of rivalry between both of them, benefit of doubt is given in favour of respondent No.2-accused. The reasons are also stated in paragraph No.21 of the judgment and also discussed in paragraph No.22 and also taken note of sworn testimony of P.W.1 and he has admitted that he has given several representations to the various authorities of Education Department, wherein the accused is - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 working to take action against the accused which give raises smell of vengeance from the side of the complainant. In such circumstances, in this case, the testimony of P.W.1 without further substantive and corroborative evidence cannot be considered sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 12. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.23 observed that P.W.2 is relative to P.W.1 and at the first instance, when he gave the evidence, he says that he did not know the reason for alleged threat. But, immediately again he says the reason for causing threat and these factors were taken note by the Trial Court and First Appellate Courtalso.Having considered the delay,the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the delay is not explained by the prosecution and hence, the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Court also discussed the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and observed that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is in accordance with the materials placed on record. However, it is the duty of the Court to consider as to whether the allegations made in the complaint do fall within the purview of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and ingredients of Section 506 IPC is taken note of and comes to the conclusion that mere uttering of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4286 CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021 words is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. When such being the material on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in considering the material on record and I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The revisional Court can exercise the powers, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Trial Court is not legal.