-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.137/2018
BETWEEN :
State of Karnataka by
Uppinangadi P.S.
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Petitioner
(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)
AND :
K. Mohammed Asif
S/o. Late Chayyaabba
Aged about 38 years
Residing at Barakath, Gorigudde
Velensiya, Jappinamogeru Village
Mangaluru - 575 001. ... Respondent
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. by the S.P.P. for the State
praying to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur in
C.C.No.700/2010 dated 15.02.2017 and
Crl.A.No.5006/2017 dated 26.09.2017 passed by the V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru
sitting at Puttur, D.K., for the offence p/u/s 353, 332,
504 and 506 of IPC and convict and sentence the
-2-
accused for the offence p/u/s 353, 332, 504 and 506 of
IPC and allow this Crl.RP.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the State challenging the judgment passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore sitting at Puttur in Criminal Appeal No.5006/2017 dated 26.09.2017.
2. I have heard Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, learned HCGP for the petitioner-State. Respondent though served with notice has remained absent.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.10.2009 at about 7.00 p.m., the police received a credible information about illegal transportation of cattle in a lorry bearing No.KA41/0340 and immediately, they have proceeded to Nelyadi to intercept the vehicle. The said lorry came at about 7.30 p.m. when the police waived their hands, the lorry did -3- not stop and proceeded further. Subsequently, CWs.1 and 2 chased the lorry in a private jeep and succeeded in intercepting the said lorry and they have found three persons along with driver. When the police questioned them as who are they and why they did not stop the vehicle then the accused persons abused in a filthy language and questioned their power and CW.1 tried to search the lorry, then accused held the shirt collar of CW.1 and pulled him down and assaulted with hands on his shoulder and also dragged him. They have also assaulted CW.2 when he tried to restrain the accused from assaulted CW.1 and they have also given a life threat. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No. 216/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC.
4. Thereafter, the trial Court held the trial and by judgment dated 15.02.2017 in C.C.No.700/2010 acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, State preferred an appeal. The appeal was -4- also dismissed. It is the contention of the learned HCGP that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without considering the evidence placed on record and without looking into the documents, have erroneously acquitted the accused. It is his further submission that PWs.1 and 2 are the police constables and they have deposed the overt acts of the accused persons. Even during the course of the cross examination, they have suggested that the said police officials have demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the accused that itself goes to show that presence of the PWs.1 and 2 has been admitted by the accused and they have restrained PWs.1 and 2 and have assaulted has been proved in the evidence. It is his further submission that discharge certificate produced also shows that they have suffered with injuries and they have been abstracted while discharging their official duty. The trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without looking into the evidence properly has come to the wrong conclusion and has -5- wrongly dismissed the appeal. On these ground, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. On perusal of the records, it indicates that in order to prove his case got examined 9 witnesses and got marked 6 documents. Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 are the official witnesses who have registered the case after sentencing the evidence. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are interested evidence and the case has been registered as against the accused as per Ex.D1. In that light, a false case has been registered. Even the trial Court has observed that though the official witnesses have gone on official duty but they have taken a private jeep and the driver of the private jeep has not cited in the witnesses list and he has not been examined and the evidence of the PW3 indicates -6- that he was at distance of more than 150-200 meters away from the place where the alleged incident has taken place and there is no likelihood that he is hearing the words spoken by the accused persons. It is further observed by the trial Court that the evidence of the PW.4 indicates that PW1 has told him to depose of the evidence in this case and accordingly, he has deposed that itself creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. In that light, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence produced does not inspire evidence of the Court so as to accept and convict the accused.
7. On perusal of the material placed on record and judgment of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court after considering the evidence has rightly acquitted and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, it is well settled preposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court by exercising discretion and by -7- analyzing the evidence, have acquitted the accused, the High Court should not interfere with such judgment and orders, unless the same is perverse, illegal and unlawful.
8. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the State has not made out any good grounds so as to allow the petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KA