Sri Rangaiah vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2626 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                              BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.830 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

Sri. Rangaiah
S/o. Sanaiah,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at Arekre Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Sakleshpura Taluk,
Hassan District.
                                                    ..Petitioner
(By Sri. Prakash M. Patil, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore.
                                                 .. Respondent
(By Smt. K.P. Yashodha, High Court Govt. Pleader)

                                    ****
      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Case No.1344/2007
dated 04-02-2010 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and
J.M.F.C., at Sakleshpura confirmed by Principal Sessions Judge,
                                               Crl.R.P.No.830/2011
                                  2


Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.12/2010 dated 22-06-2011 for the
offence punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504 of IPC, and allow
this Criminal Revision Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing, through
Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court
made the following:

                             ORDER

The present petitioner was accused in C.C.No.1344/2007 in

the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. at

Sakleshpur, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial

Court"), who, by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence

dated 04-02-2010, was convicted for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and was sentenced

accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in

Criminal Appeal No.12/2010 in the Court of the learned Principal

Sessions Judge at Hassan, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the

"the Sessions Judge's Court"), which after hearing both side,

dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of

conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

challenging both the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as

well the Sessions Judge's Court, the accused has preferred the

present revision petition.

2. The respondent - State is being represented by the

learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court's records

were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is appearing through

video conference. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State is physically appearing in the Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and

Sessions Judge's Court's records.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only

point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Judges Court that, the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

8. The summary of the case of the prosecution as could be

seen in the charge sheet is that, on 02-03-2007, at about 6:45

p.m., at Arekere Village, in front of the house of the complainant,

within the limits of the complainant - Police Station, the accused

took up a quarrel with CW-2 - Shivashankara, objecting for the said

CW-2 fetching water from a well nearby and in the process, he

voluntarily caused hurt to CW-2 by assaulting him with a sickle. At

that time, he also assaulted CW-1 - Hoovamma - the wife of CW-2,

who rushed to the rescue of her husband, and voluntarily inflicted

grievous injury on her left thigh with the same sickle and also

threatened both CW-1 and CW-2 of taking away their lives and with

dire consequences and thus has committed the offences punishable

under Section 323, 324 and 506 of the IPC.

9. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove

the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined seven

witnesses from PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked documents from Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

Exs.P-1 to P-6 and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-3. However,

neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got

marked on behalf of the accused.

10. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04-02-2010,

convicted the accused for the alleged offences, which was further

confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court.

11. Among the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution

as PW-1 to PW-7, PW-1 and PW-2 are the alleged injured in the

incident. Both of them have uniformly stated that, on the alleged

date of incident which was on 02-03-2007, at about 6:30 p.m. or

6:45 p.m., the accused who is their relative went to their house and

objected to CW-2, questioning him as to why did he was fetching

water from a nearby well. Not being satisfied with the reply given

by CW-2, the accused assaulted CW-2 with a sickle he was holding.

It is further the evidence of PW-1 (CW-1) and PW-2 (CW-2)

that, the wife of PW-2, i.e. PW-1 (CW-1-complainant) rushed to the

rescue of her husband. Annoyed by the same, the accused Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

assaulted her also with the same sickle, inflicting a grievous injury

on her left thigh.

PW-2 has further stated that, in the process, he could able to

snatch the sickle used by the accused and kept it with him.

However, the accused while leaving the place, threatened both of

them of dire consequences and eliminating them and left the place.

PW-2 has further stated that, immediately after the incident,

though he himself was injured, but could be able to shift his injured

wife to the Government Hospital at Sakaleshpura and get

treatment to his wife.

PW-1 has stated that, in the Hospital, she gave statement to

the Police who had gone there. PW-2 further stated that, on the

next day, that was on 03-03-2007, in the morning, the Police

visited the spot and drew a scene of offence panchanama, at which

time, he produced before them a nighty and a petty coat which are

the dresses worn by his wife at the time of the incident and also

produced the sickle used by the accused in the commission of the

crime. Both the injured persons, viz. PW-1 and PW-2 have

identified MO-1, MO-2 and MO-3 and stated that, it was accused Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

and accused alone who has committed the alleged offences. The

denial suggestions made to them in their cross-examination were

not admitted as true by them.

12. Admittedly, the persons who could speak about the

incident is only PW-1 and PW-2 and there are no independent eye

witnesses to the incident. It is on this point, the learned counsel for

the petitioner/accused vehemently contended that, the accused

and the complainant are close relatives, but there are no

independent eye witnesses to the incident, as such, the evidence of

PW-1 and PW-2 is not believable.

Learned counsel further submitted that, PW-1, PW-2 and

PW-5 since are relatives, they are interested witnesses, as such

also, their evidence cannot be believed.

Learned counsel also canvassed a point that, the alleged

seizure of Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-3 is also suspectable

and there is no corroboration about their seizure, since the

independent witness, i.e. PW-3 has not supported the case of the

prosecution regarding the alleged seizure.

Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

13. From the evidence of the parties and from the

submissions made by the learned counsel from both side, it remains

an undisputed fact that, the accused and PW-1 and PW-2 are

relatives. According to PW-1, the accused is her brother-in-law.

According to PW-2, the accused is his brother. It is also not in

dispute that, they stay in a same lane as though they are

neighbours. It is also not in dispute that, in their lane, at about 30

meters away from the house of PW-1 and PW-2, there is a well.

The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that, on 02-03-2007, in the

evening, the accused entered their house questioning as to why

PW-1 and PW-2 were fetching water from the said well, has not

been specifically denied in the cross-examination of PW-1 and

PW-2. Therefore, the said fact stands proved that the accused had

questioned PW-1 and PW-2 regarding they procuring water from

the said well which was there near to their house.

14. However, the main contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner/accused is that, the complainant (PW-1) and her

husband (PW-2) have lodged a false complaint against the accused Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

and that the incident of assault by the accused has not been proved

by the prosecution.

15. With respect to the alleged incident of assault said to

have been made by the accused as against PW-1 and PW-2, it is

only the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the primary

witnesses, which is subsequently shown to have been corroborated

by the medical evidence of PW- 6 who is the Medical Doctor.

The complainant - PW-1 in her evidence has specifically

stated that, at the time of the incident in their house, herself and

her husband alone were there and that their children had gone

outside. The said statement has not been denied in her cross-

examination. Furthermore, the said witness has also specifically

stated that, at the time of the incident, no public came to the spot.

The said statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused

projects as a false statement, contending that, had there really

been occurrence of any such incident, the neighbours should have

necessarily been there and witnessed the incident.

Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

No doubt PW-1 in her evidence has stated that, in the lane

where they are residing, there are in total nine houses, but, by that

itself, it cannot be inferred that, there should be some persons from

those houses as witnesses to the alleged incident. As could be

seen from the scene of offence Panchanama at Exhibit P-2, except

on the western side, all the three sides of the house of PW-1 and

PW-2, there is a vacant place. The evidence of PW-1 and

PW-2 also would go to show that, there was a compound in the

form of fencing around their house. Thus, the place of incident is

not a residential house standing in a lane with other houses leaving

no space between them or with certain common walls. Thus, when

in the evening, in an incident which has taken place in front of the

house of the complainant, which was an independent house

surrounded by vacant places and covered by a fencing, it cannot

be expected that the neighbours should go over there and watch

the proceedings.

16. According to the prosecution, there was no hue and cry

or yelling of the injured alarming the neighbours in the locality.

Admittedly, the accused is not a stranger to the complainant and Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

her family. He being the brother of PW-2 and brother-in-law of the

complainant (PW-1), it cannot be expected that, the inmates of the

house, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 raises some alarm by the arrival of

their relative. Therefore, when a close relative of the family has

gone to the house of his relative and objected for them for fetching

the water from the nearby well, and in the process, if he has

assaulted with any weapon, it cannot be expected that, the

neighbours in the locality, who admittedly, reside in their

independent houses, after the vacant place surrounding the house

of the injured, to witness the incident. Therefore, merely because

there are no independent eye witnesses to the incident, the entire

case of the prosecution cannot be suspected or disbelieved.

However, in such a situation, before believing the evidence of the

injured witnesses, their evidence has to be thoroughly scrutinized

and examined to ascertain whether they are trustworthy.

17. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 have

gone uniformly and corroborating with each other. They have given

a uniform picture of the alleged incident and also of the alleged Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

assault said to have been made by the accused against each of

them.

PW-1 (complainant) has specifically stated that, the accused

assaulted her with the tip of the sharp edge of the sickle on her left

thigh and assaulted her husband with the same sickle on the left

side of his lips. She categorically stated that, except on the lips of

her husband, he was not assaulted on any other parts of his body.

The same is the evidence of PW-2 also. As such, with respect to

the alleged act of assault said to have been made by the accused,

both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) who are none else than the

injured have given a uniform description of the assault.

18. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the injured

witnesses, is further corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-6,

who has stated in her evidence that, on 02-03-2007, at about

8:00 p.m., CW-1 and CW- 2 (PW-1 and PW-2 respectively) had

gone to her Hospital with the history of assault by the accused with

the sickle at about 6:40 p.m. on that day. Thus, the Doctor

(PW-6) has made it clear that, both the injured have stated before Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

her that, they were injured at the assault made by none else than

the accused, that too, by using a sickle, at about 6:40 p.m.

PW-6 - the Doctor has also stated that, when she examined

CW-2 - Hoovamma, she noticed a massive lacerated wound,

obliquely placed over the antero-lateral aspect of the left thigh and

the said wound was bone deep and active bleeding was present.

The internal lateral muscle was also cut from its origin measuring

8"x3"x5". She has identified the said injury as grievous in nature

and opined that the said injury has been caused within six hours

prior to her examination of the patient.

With respect to the other injured, i.e. PW-2, she has stated

that, she noticed a cut wound, measuring about ½ cm. x ½ cm. on

the left side of the upper lip. She opined that, the said injury was

simple in nature. After identifying the Wound Certificate said to

have been given by her at Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4 respectively,

and after seeing the sickle at MO-1, the witness (PW-6 -

the Doctor) also stated that, those injuries could have been possible

to be caused when a person is assaulted with the said sickle. Thus, Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2

about the injuries sustained and the infliction of the said injuries by

the use of sickle at MO-1.

19. It was suggested to PW-1 in her cross-examination from

the accused's side that, the injuries sustained by her were possible

to be caused when a person falls down by slipping on the floor. A

similar suggestion was also made to another injured, viz.PW-2, in

his cross-examination that, the injury sustained by him could have

been caused by falling down on earth. However, both the witnesses

have denied the said suggestion.

20. Even to the Medical Doctor, i.e.PW-6 also, a suggestion

was made that, the injuries sustained by PW-2 could have been

possible to be caused if a person falls on the floor from his front

side. No doubt, the witness (PW-6- the Doctor) stated that, it is

possible to occur so, but, by that possibility itself, it cannot be

deduced that, the injury upon PW-2 has been caused on account of

he falling on the floor from his front side. It is for the reason that,

mere making a suggestion of possibility of occurrence of some Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

injury through some other modes or means also, is not sufficient to

discard the evidence of the injured witness himself, which is further

corroborated by the medical evidence.

With respect to the injury said to have been caused on PW-1,

though it was suggested to the Doctor (PW-6) that, the injuries

sustained by PW-1 (CW-1) is possible to be caused when that

person falls on a sharp-edged object, the Doctor has denied the

same. Therefore, the alleged possibility with respect to the injury

found on PW-1 was over-ruled by the Doctor as an accidental

injury.

Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who are none else

than the injured in the incident, about the incident and the

involvement of the accused as an assailant in the crime inspires

confidence and it possesses no element to disbelieve the same.

Further, the infliction of the injuries and the nature of injuries is

further corroborated by the evidence of Doctor, i.e. PW-6. As such,

merely due to the non-presence of the independent witnesses, the Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, which in its all aspects, trustworthy

and believable, cannot be discarded or disbelieved.

21. Regarding the place of the offence and the alleged

seizure of the weapon at MO-1 and the dress materials at MO-2 and

MO-3 have been stated by PW-4 and PW-5. PW-4, though has

stated that, he has subscribed his signature to the panchanama at

Exhibit P-2, but has not supported the case of the prosecution

regarding the seizure of MO-1 to MO-3 under the said panchanama.

Though he was treated as hostile and the prosecution was

permitted to cross-examine him, still, it could not get any support

from the said witness in the matter. As such, it is only the

evidence of PW-5 which supports the case of the prosecution in

that regard. Admittedly PW-5 is the nephew of PW-1. It is taking

this blood relationship of PW-1 and PW-5, the learned counsel for

the petitioner/accused contended that, PW-5 is an interested

witness, as such, his evidence cannot be believed.

No doubt PW-5 is a relative of PW-1. Merely because a

person is related to another, it cannot be concluded that, he is an Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

interested witness. In the instant case, it is natural for the simple

reason that, the accused is more closer in relation to PW-1 and

PW-2 than it was PW-5 to them. As such, it cannot be said that,

no such incident has happened or no element of either hatredness

or interest can be attributed in such a circumstance. However, if it

is shown to the Court that, the witness being the relative of the

injured had some intention to ensure the conviction of the accused

in the matter, as such, he has supported the case of the

prosecution, then, he becomes an interested witness and his

evidence has to be cross-examined very carefully before accepting

it. Sometimes, his evidence may be totally unbelievable, once he

is proved to be an interested witness.

22. However, in the instant case, as already observed, even

the accused was also closer in his relation to PW-1 and PW-2 than

PW-5. Still, when the evidence of PW-5 is examined thoroughly, it

can be seen that, in his entire evidence, he has not shown any

inclination towards PW-1 or PW-2 or any dissatisfaction as against

the accused and that his evidence does not show that it is biased or

one-sided one. He has only stated that, PW-1 is his aunt and he Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

had taken the Police to the scene of offence and a scene of offence

Panchanama was drawn in his presence, for which, as a witness, he

has subscribed his signature to it. He has also stated that, MO-1

to MO-3 were seized under the very same panchanama.

Corroborating to the same, even PW-2 (injured) has also

stated that, it was himself who produced MO-1 to MO-3 before the

Police on 03-03-2007, when they had been to his house for drawing

a panchanama. With respect to the possession of the weapon said

to have been used in the commission of the crime, PW-2 has, in his

very evidence itself stated that, when the accused attacked him

with the said sickle, he had forcibly taken that sickle from him

(accused) and had kept it in his house. Therefore, there is all the

reason for PW-2 - the injured presenting the said sickle to the

Police in the presence of panchas on 03-03-2007. Therefore, the

evidence of PW-5 regarding the seizure of MO-1 to MO-3 and the

scene of offence corroborates the case of the prosecution. Merely

because the said seizure is said to have been made the next day of

the incident, i.e. on 03-03-2007, it cannot be discarded or dis-

believed, though contended by the learned counsel for the Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

petitioner, for the reason that, admittedly, the incident has taken

place on the previous day evening, after which, the injured persons

first went to the Hospital for their immediate necessity of medical

treatment. Even according to the Doctor (PW-6), it was at about

8:00 p.m., the injured persons came to her and she examined them

between 8:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. The Investigating Officer who

was examined as PW-7, has stated that, after receiving the

intimation regarding a Medico-Legal Case (MLC) from the

Government Hospital at Sakleshpura at 10:30 p.m. on 02-03-2007,

he proceeded to the Hospital. Thus, by the time the Police

received the information about a Medico Legal Case (MLC), it was

already 10:30 p.m. on that day. It was thereafter, PW-7

proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the

injured complainant as per Exhibit P-1 and registered it in their

station at 11:15 p.m. as could be seen from Exhibit P1. Therefore,

it cannot be expected that, in the circumstance of the case, the

Police were required to visit the spot and drawn a panchanama on

the very night itself. However, without making any further delay, on

the very next day morning, at 9:30 p.m., the Investigating Officer has Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

proceeded to the spot, as stated by PW-7 in his evidence and drew

a scene of offence panchanama as per Exhibit P-2 and seized MO-1

to MO-3 under the said panchanama from the spot. Therefore, it

cannot be held that, there was any unreasonable or inordinate

delay in seizing MO-1 to MO-3 by the Investigating Officer. Thus,

the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is medically corroborated by the

evidence of PW-6 (Doctor). Admittedly, the accused was a relative

of both PW-1 and PW-2, as such, they have easily identified the

accused, at the time of commission of the offence.

Further, both the injured persons have identified the weapon

used in the commission of the crime as well the dresses worn by

one of the injured, i.e. PW-1, at the time of the incident. The

description of the said dress material at MO-2 that, it was torn in

the said incident is corroborated in the evidence of not only PW-1

(complainant) but also in the scene of offence panchanama at

Exhibit P-2 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-7).

23. Thus, there is no scope to suspect the prosecution case

even to the smallest extent, as such, both the Trial Court as well as Crl.R.P.No.830/2011

the Sessions Judge's Court have rightly held the accused as guilty

of the alleged offences and have sentenced the accused

proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt of the accused. I

do not find any perversity, illegality, or error in the impugned

judgment passed by both the Courts, warranting any interference

at the hands of this Court.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed as devoid of

merits.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial

Court and also the Sessions Judge's Court along with their

respective records forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*