State Of Karnataka By vs K Mohammed Asif
2021 Latest Caselaw 516 Kant

                            -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

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

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

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

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

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