Govindarajulu @ Govindaraju vs The State
2022 Latest Caselaw 3838 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

           CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.49/2013

BETWEEN:

1.     GOVINDARAJULU @ GOVINDARAJU,
       S/O VENGANNA NAIDU,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       R/A NO.350/B, 8TH CROSS,
       10TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
       BSK 3RD STAGE,
       BANGALORE-560 048.

2.     R GOPAL,
       S/O RAJGOPAL,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
       R/A NO. 350/B, 8TH CROSS,
       7TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
       BSK 3RD STAGE,
       BANGALORE-560 048.                      ...PETITIONERS

     (BY SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

THE STATE
BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
BANGALORE-560 001.                             ...RESPONDENT

               (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-II,
BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.694/2008 REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED
                                 2



BY THE PETITIONERS BY UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2008 PASSED BY THE II
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.18157/2005 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324 READ WITH 34 OF IPC
SENTENCING THE PETITIONERS TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR
3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323
READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND THE PETITIONERS WERE FURTHER
SENTENCING THEM TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324 READ WITH 34 OF
IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.20,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE
TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This matter is listed for final hearing. On perusal of the

order sheet, it is clear that the learned counsel for the

petitioners is not pursuing the matter diligently. When the

matter was listed in the month of January twice, there was no

representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, heard the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State and also perused the impugned order of

conviction as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court

and the grounds urged in the revision petition.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that on 07.04.2005 at about 11.00 p.m. at Banashankari III

Stage, Bengaluru, in front of house No.428, the accused persons

voluntarily picked up quarrel with C.W.2 Jayamma in respect of

chit amount and assaulted her with their hands. When C.W.1

and C.W.3 intervened to rescue C.W.2, the accused persons

assaulted C.W.1 and C.W.3 with club and caused them bleeding

injuries. Hence, case has been registered, matter has been

investigated and filed the charge-sheet for the offence

punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with 34 of IPC. The

prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against the

petitioners herein, examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked the

documents at Exs.P.1 to 6 and thereafter recorded 313

statement and the accused not led any defence evidence. Based

on oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Trial

Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 323, 324 read with 34 of IPC and maximum sentence of

one year was imposed for the offence punishable under Section

324 of IPC along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

sentence, an appeal in Crl.A.No.694/2008 was filed before the

Appellate Court and on re-appreciation of both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, the Appellate Court

dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition is

filed before this Court.

4. In the revision petition, it is contended that the order

passed by the Trial Court and the confirmation order passed by

the Appellate Court is against the material on record and these

petitioners at no point of time assaulted the complainant or

other injured persons. Both the Courts ought to have been more

vigilant in appreciating the fact and hence it requires

interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that

P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the injured witnesses, P.W.4 is the eye-

witness and P.W.5 is the doctor, who examined the witnesses

and those witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution

and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of these material

witnesses and both the Courts considering the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, rightly convicted the accused and

imposed the sentence and the sentence is also not exorbitant.

The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the material available

on record, in paragraph No.14 of its judgment discussed oral and

documentary evidence i.e., the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3

injured, P.W.5 doctor and also P.W.4 eye-witness and comes to

the conclusion that nothing has been elicited and contradictions

and omissions are found and dismissed the appeal. Hence, there

are no grounds to invoke the revisional jurisdiction.

6. Having heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, considering the

grounds urged in the revision petition and looking into the

material available on record, the points that arise for the

consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and whether the order amounts to perverse order and whether it suffers from legality and correctness?

(ii) What order?

Point No.(i):

7. Having perused the material available on record and

also the grounds urged in the petition as well as the submission

of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the prosecution

mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the

injured witnesses. The doctor P.W.5 treated the injured P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and issued wound certificate in terms of Exs.P.3 and 4.

The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of P.W.4 eye-

witness. The eye-witness has spoken with regard to the incident

was taken place with regard to the chit issue. The injuries in

terms of Exs.P.3 and 4 are simple in nature. P.W.5 doctor has

stated that he has examined the witnesses on the same day i.e.,

the injured Murugesh and Pandu and the nature of injuries are

also simple in nature. That has been discussed by the Trial

Court in paragraph No.10 of its judgment. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are

the official witnesses, i.e., ASI and Investigating Officer. P.W.1

to P.W.5 are the material witnesses. P.W.4 is the eye-witness

and P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the injuries witnesses and the medical

evidence also corroborates the case of the prosecution i.e.,

P.W.1 to P.W.3 have suffered the injuries. In the cross-

examination of those witnesses, nothing is elicited. When such

being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioners in the revision petition that the Trial Court has

committed an error in not appreciating both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record in its proper perspective

cannot be accepted. Unless the Trial Court has not considered

the evidence on record, this Court cannot invoke the revisional

jurisdiction.

8. Having perused the order of the Appellate Court, the

Appellate Court in paragraph No.13 of its judgment, re-

appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and so also the

evidence of P.W.5 doctor who treated P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

considered the evidence of P.W.4 and in paragraph No.14

reconsidered the evidence on record and comes to the

conclusion that the injuries which are mentioned in Exs.P.3 and

4 have been caused with club and hands and the doctor also

says that those injuries could be caused when club is used and

hence I do not find any merit in the revision petition to come to

the conclusion that both the Courts have committed an error in

appreciating the material on record. Unless a perverse order is

passed, the question of invoking revisional jurisdiction does not

arise. Apart from that, the order passed by the Trial Court and

the Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality and while

invoking revisional jurisdiction, there must be manifestly an

illegality committed by the Courts below and only then this Court

can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and in the case on hand,

it does not warrant to invoke the revisional jurisdiction.

Point No.(ii):

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD