STATE OF KARNATAKA v. RAVI KANNAPPA BALEGAR

(BY SRI. HANUMESH DESAI. ADVOCATE, SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE I- ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, IN S.C.NO.5013/2017 DATED 12.12.2018 AND IN C.C.NO.811/2012 DATED 22.11.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. JMFC COURT, SIRSI AND OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 109 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC AND TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

#1. Heard Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for revision petitioner and Sri. Hanumesh Desai, learned counsel for Sri. Lingesh Kattemane, learned counsel for respondents.

#2. State is the revision petitioner challenging the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.811/2012 acquitting the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.5013/2017.

#3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019

3.1. Respondents were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC C.C.No.811/2012.

3.2. Prosecution case would further reveal that on

19.08.2012 at about 6:45 P.M., all the respondents with common intention came towards the house of the informant and accused No.1 said to have pulled the Chudidar top of the informant, trying to outrage her modesty.

3.3. At that juncture, husband of the informant came to her rescue; accused Nos.2 to 3 pulled her husband and assaulted him with hands and kicked him.

3.4. In respect of the same incident, there was one more counter case was registered and the same was also sent for the investigation and charge sheet came to be filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019

#4. Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of offences alleged against respondents C.C.No.811/2012.

#5. After due trial, acquitted the accused for want of necessary evidence on record. In the para Nos. 9 to 11 of the impugned judgment of the trial Court, it has been held as under: “9. Point No.1 to 3: As Point No.1 to 3 are interrelaten they are taken together for discussion at the same time to avoid repetition. In this case the prosecution examined only three witnesses out of which PW.1 and 2 are alleged to be the attesters of spot of offence and recovery mahazar. Both PW.1 and 2 have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that, the police have drawn the spot of offence panchanama Ex.P1 in their presence as shown by PW.1 and also recovered torn chudidar top of the victim under panchanama at MO.1 in their presence. Hence, the recovery o PW.1 and 2 and drawing of spot of offence panchanama is no proved by the prosecution. Appeal-No.5013/2017

#10. PW.3 Investigation Officer, has deposed regarding registering of the case, drawing of spot of offence panchanama and recovery of the material objects, recording the statement of witnesses and after receipt of wound certificate concluded the investigating and filed charge sheet against the Accused persons.

#11. During the course of cross examination PW.3 had admitted Cri.No.64/2012 against the Informant and her family that, a counter case registered - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019 members and assaulted the Accused No.2 of this case with a sickle. The said case is pending for trial before the Trial Court. He has also admitted that, the Informant had not come to the Police station to file a complaint. But a perusal of Ex.P2 the complaint filed by the Informant goes to show that, written complaint was received by the I.O. from the Informant in the Police Station.”

#6. Being aggrieved by the same, State filed an appeal.

#7. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court secured the records and in the light of the arguments put forward on behalf of the State, appreciated the material evidence on record and para Nos.12 to 15, held as under and dismissed the appeal. “12. Further this Court is of the opinion that, no doubt a counter case is filed against the Informant and her family members in Cri.No.64/2012 by the I.O. it goes to show that after filing of a complaint regarding assault on Accused No.2 with a sickle by the Informant and her family members as a counter blast a counter complaint might have been filed by the Informant and her family members against the Accused persons. The learned Advocate for Accused argued that in the counter case the Accused persons failed to appear before the Court. Hence, the case could not be concluded within a reasonable period along with this case.

#13. No doubt as per the settled principles of law case and counter case needs to be disposed simultaneously. But if in one case the Accused deliberately remained absent and does not assist the Court in early disposal of the case and in another case the Accused persons - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019 regularly attend before the Trial Court then the Trial Court has no other option except disposing the case wherein the Accused are regularly attend the Court. Further a perusal of the Lower Court records goes to show that, in spite of issuance of witness summons and NBW to CW.1, 4 5 and 6 that is the Informant and her husband, but the sam were not executed and prosecution has failed to produce the before the Court regular attendance of these Accused persons the Trial Court has disposed off this case. For these reasons disposal of this case without disposing the counter case by the Trial Court cannot be termed as improper. their evidence. Considering

#14. Further this Court is of the opinion that, in this case the witnesses examined by the prosecution PW.1 and 2 have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the discussions made above this Court is of the opinion that, the Prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 19.08.2012 at about 06.45 p.m., the Accused persons with their common intention assaulted the CW.1 and 4 and outraged the modesty of CW.1 by pulling her chudidar top and gave life threat to them and thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec.354, 323, 324, 504, 506, 109 r/w 34 of IPC.

#15. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court reveals that the Trial Court has considered all these facts and acquitted the Accused persons. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court cannot be termed as perverse, capricious and unsustainable under law. Hence, there is no necessity to intervene in the judgment of the Trial Court. For the reasons discussed as above Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.”

#8. Being further aggrieved by the same, State has preferred the present revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019

#9. Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for revision petitioner-State reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly acquitted accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.

#10. Per contra Sri. Hanumesh Desai, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgment.

#11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

#12. On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that the reasons assigned by the trial Magistrate by appreciating material on record. It is justified and same is re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court as referred to supra does not required any interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019

#13. Further, an order of acquittal recorded by trial Magistrate reinforces the innocence of the accused. When the said order of acquittal is confirmed by the First Appellate Court, accused enjoys not the double innocence but the triple innocence.

#14. Therefore, there must be heard and compelling circumstances or patent factual error in appreciating the material evidence on record which would warrant the exercise of the powers vested in the revisional jurisdiction by the this Court so as to secure the ends of justice.

#15. In the case on hand, especially the materials placed on record discussed by trial Magistrate and the First Appellate Court referred to supra would make it clear that no such compelling circumstances are made out by the State so as to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by both the Courts.

#16. Hence, following order is passed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6940 CRL.RP No. 100122 of 2019 ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. Bail bonds, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 21