Karnataka High Court
Mallappa Ghulappa Ningapure vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101757 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAPPA GHULAPPA NINGAPURE
AGE.55 YEARS,
OCC.AGRICULTURIST,
R/O.AVARAGOL,
TALWAR FARM HOUSE,
TQ.HUKKERI, DIST.BELAGAVI-591309.
2. SADASHIV GHULAPPA NINGAPURE
AGE.53 YEARS,
OCC.AGRICULTURIST,
R/O.AVARAGOL,
NEAR BUS STAND,
TQ.HUKKERI, DIST.BELAGAVI-591309.
3. SMT.MAHADEVI MALLAPPA NINGAPURE
AGE.50 YEARS,
OCC.HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O.AVARAGOL,
Digitally TALWAR FARM HOUSE
signed by
ANNAPURNA TQ.HUKKERI, DIST.BELAGAVI-591309.
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
4. SHAILA SADASHIV NINGAPURE
Location:
HIGH COURT AGE.45 YEARS,
OF
KARNATAKA OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK,
DHARWAD R/O.AVARAGOL,
NEAR BUS STAND,
TQ.HUKKERI,
DIST.BELAGAVI-591309.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.S.SANGATI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HUKKERI, HUKKERI PS
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. SHIVANAND SHIVALING NINGAPURE,
AGE.39 YEARS,
OCC.PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O.AVARAGOL,
TQ.HUKKERI,
DIST.BELAGAVI-591309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
24.05.2022 IN SC NO.43/2013 ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 311 OF CR.P.C., PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI,
SITTING AT CHIKKODI, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAME.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
Heard Sri B.S.Sangati, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State and perused the
records on admission.
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
2. The present petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"To quash the order dated 24.05.2022
in S.C.No.43/2013 on application filed
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., pending on
the file of VII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at
Chikkodi, and consequently allow the
same."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in
S.C.No.43/2013 and they are facing trial for the
major offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
PWs.1 to 8 were examined on behalf of the
prosecution and PW1 was partly cross-examined by
the defence on 10.08.2018 and on 11.10.2018 since
the defence counsel was absent, the further cross-
examination was taken as nil and on 07.10.2020,
PW8 was examined by the prosecution and
thereafter, PW8 was further examined on
07.10.2021. Thereafter, since cross-examination was
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
not conducted, cross-examination of PW8 was also
taken as nil. Thereafter, accused-petitioners filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that
they want to cross-examine PW1 and PW8 when the
case stood posted for recording of the accused
statement. The said application on contest, by order
dated 24.05.2022 got rejected. Learned Sessions
Judge has noted that the accused persons are not
interested in prosecuting the case properly and there
is a huge delay in filing the application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., dismissed the application. Being
aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed by
the accused-petitioners.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the
petition, Sri B.S.Sangati, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the concept of fair trial is
not properly adhered to, in the case on hand and
therefore, sought for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that this is ten years old sessions
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
case and there is no progress on behalf of the
accused persons and further cross-examination of
PW1 was taken as nil on 11.10.2018 and nothing
prevented the accused-petitioners to further cross-
examine or file an application immediately after
11.10.2018 seeking for recall of PW1 and there is a
huge delay of four years in filing the application that
too after ten years of filing of the Sessions Case and
sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Perused the material on record
meticulously.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Akil @ Javed V/s State of NCT of Delhi reported
in (2013) 7 SCC 125 has directed all the sessions
Court in the country to adhere to the directions
issued in the said case and in the light of the same,
speedy trial is to be properly implemented. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph 43 in the said case
has held under:
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
"43. It is unfortunate that in spite of
the specific directions issued by this Court
and reminded once again in Shambhu Nath
such recalcitrant approach was being made
by the trial Court unmindful of the adverse
serious consequences flowing therefrom
affecting the society at large. Therefore,
even while disposing of this appeal by
confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant by the learned
trial Judge, as confirmed by the impugned
judgment of the High Court, we direct the
Registry to forward a copy of this decision
to all the High Courts to specifically follow
the instructions issued by this Court in the
decision reported in Rajdeo Sharma and
reiterated in Shambhu Nath by issuing
appropriate circular, if already not issued.
If such circular has already been issued,
as directed, ensure that such directions
are scrupulously followed by the trial
Courts without providing scope for any
deviation in following the procedure
prescribed in the matter of a trial of
sessions cases as well as other cases as
provided under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. In
this respect, the High Courts will also be
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
well advised to use their machinery in the
respective State Judicial Academy to
achieve the desired result. We hope and
trust that the respective High Courts
would take serious note of the above
directions issued in the decisions reported
in Rajdeo Sharma which has been
extensively quoted and reiterated in the
subsequent decision of this Court reported
in Shambhu Nath and comply with the
directions at least in the future years."
8. Despite the same, there is no sense of
responsibility shown by all concerned. Learned trial
Judge therefore was justified in rejecting the
application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. However,
the concept of fair trial is not applicable only to the
accused, but it should also for the victim. Taking
note of these aspects of the matter and non-cross-
examination of PWs.1 and 8 in full, would also affect
the rights of the accused. As a final chance, the
application filed by the accused needs to be allowed.
However, the hardship that has been caused to
PWs.1 and 8 cannot be lost sight of by the delay
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
tactics used by the accused persons in the progress
of the trial. Accordingly, cost of Rs.20,000/- (for
PW1 Rs.10,000/- and PW8 Rs.10,000/-) is imposed
for allowing the petition. It is submitted by Sri
B.S.Sangati that the case is now listed on 1 s t of July,
2022 for recording of the accused statement.
Accordingly, this court pass the following:-
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently,
application filed by the accused seeking
recall of PWs.1 and 8 is hereby allowed on
payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each to
PWs.1 and 8, which is a condition
precedent and on the next date of hearing,
positively the accused has to cross-
examine the witnesses.
On 01.07.2022, request was made to
recall PWs.1 and 8 and the learned trial
Judge shall secure the presence of PWs.1
and 8 as early as possible.
Since the Sessions Case is of the year
2013 pertaining to the incident that
occurred in Hukkeri in the year 2012, the
CRL.P No. 101757 of 2022
trial shall be concluded on or before
31.07.2022.
It is needless to emphasize that the
parties shall co-operative for the same.
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
