Karnataka High Court
Chandrakanth S/O Late Sangram ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 10 March, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekarpresided Byksj
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200092/2016
C/w
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200023 /2017
IN CRL.RP.No.200092/2016:
Between:
1. Chandrakanth S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
2. Smt. Sheku Bai W/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 71 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
... Revision Petitioners
(By Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty, Advocate for R2;
Since petitioner No.1 dead, the petition filed by him is
abated)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka through Police
Kushnoor-T, Tq: Aurad-B, Dist: Bidar
Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor
2
2. Smt. Iramma W/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 51 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
3. Neelkant S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
4. Kum. Mahananda D/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 31 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
Sri Avinash A.Uplaonkar & Ravi K. Anoor, Advocate for R2
to R4)
This Criminal Review Petition is filed under Section
397 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated:
27/09/2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge at Bidar, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 and confirm
the Judgment of acquittal dated: 20/03/2015, passed by
the Civil Judge & JMFC at Aurad-B in C.C.No.527/2007, by
acquitting the petitioners/accused for the offences
punishable U/secs. 504, 323, 324 and 506 R/w Sec. 34 of
IPC.
IN CRL.RP.No.200023/2017:
Between:
1. Smt. Iramma W/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 50 years, Occ: House-hold
3
2. Neelkant S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Kum. Mahananda D/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 30 years, Occ: House-hold
All are R/o: Village Koriyal
Tq: Aurad-B, Dist: Bidar
... Revision Petitioners
(By Sri Avinash A.Uplaonkar & Ravi K. Anoor, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka through
Kushnoor-T Police Station
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
2. Chandrakanth S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
3. Smt. Sheku Bai W/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 70 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1
Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, Advocate for R3;
Since respondent No.2 dead, the petition against him is
abated)
This Criminal Review Petition is filed under Section
397 of Cr.P.C., praying to examine the records in
4
C.C.No.527/2007 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC,
Aurad(B) vide order dated:20/03/2015 modify the
judgment passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge at Bidar by its judgment order dated 27 th
September 2016 in Crl. Appeal No.29/2015 and thereby
convict the respondents Nos.2 & 3 (Accused No.1 & 2).
These petitions coming on for final hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty,
learned counsel for the petitioners namely, Smt.
Sheku Bai, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in CC
No.527/2007 relating to the case in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2015 whereby filing of criminal revision petition
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in
Crl.R.P.No.200092/2016 by challenging the order
passed by the fist appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015
dated 27.09.2016 and whereby seeking setting aside
of the order and confirm the acquittal judgment
rendered by the trial Court in CC No.527/2018 dated
20.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections
504, 326, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Whereas, Crl.R.P.No.200023/2017 is filed
by Smt. Iramma, Neelakantha and Kum. Mahananda
who are the injured and they have preferred this
petition by challenging the order passed by the trial
Court in CC No.527/2007 and so also the order
passed by the first appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.29/2015, whereby under this petition
seeking to convict the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who
are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 whereby
modifying the order passed by the trial Court in
C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 sentencing to pay
fine amount held against accused Nos.1 and 2 by the
first appellate Court for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC
which is incorporated in the operative portion of the
order. Whereby, in this petition seeking conviction of
the accused for the aforesaid offences by suffering to
imprisonment for the aforesaid offences in respect of
accused Nos.1 and 2 in addition to sentencing them to
pay fine as incorporated in the operative portions of
the order.
3. Whereas, under this petition challenging
the order passed by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007
dated 20.03.2015 and so also divergent finding
passed by the first appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 by reversal of the
acquittal judgment and sentenced to pay fine for the
offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, these two petitions
have been taken up for passing common order.
4. Heard the learned counsel
Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty for the petitioner
No.2 in Crl.R.P.No.200092/2016 and so also the
counsel be directed to take notice for respondent No.3
who is arrayed as accused No.2 in the trial Court and
accordingly the counsel has undertaken to file vakalat.
Therefore, the counsel is permitted to file vakalat for
accused No.2 in the connected Crl.R.P.No.200023/
2017. But, accused No.1 in these two petitions and
whereby arrayed as accused No.1 before the trial
Court in CC No.527/2017, but the said accused died
during the pendency of this revision petition initiated
by the aggrieved parties, but for the death of the
accused No.1 and the case against him stands abated
as under Section 394 (2) of Cr.P.C. However, heard
the aforesaid counsel in both the cases.
5. The factual matrix of these petitions are as
under;
It transpired from the case of the prosecution
that; a complaint has been initiated by the
complainant namely, P.W.1-Iramma and based upon
her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by
recording the FIR as per Ex.P.22 by P.W.12 being the
ASI of Bagadal P.S. and subsequently the case was
taken up by the investigating officer who after
thorough investigation laid the charge sheet against
the accused persons. Whereas, the complainant said
that in his complaint that the accused Nos.1 and 2
have cut the branches of the tree grown in the
backyard of the house of the complainant and when
the complainant had asked the tree is belonging to the
complainant, both the accused have quarreled with
the complainant and P.W.2 and 3 who are husband
and daughter of P.W.1 were assaulted and abused in
filthy language by the accused and the accused
caused grievous injures by making use of deadly
weapon like stone and criminally intimidated. In
pursuance of the act of the accused and the filing of
the complaint, a case in Crime No.54/2007 came to be
registered by Kushnoor P.S. as against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 324,
323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
6. Subsequent to filing of a charge-sheet by
the investigating officer against the accused before
the Court of JMFC at Aurad, the accused was put on
trial by framing charges against them and whereby
the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to 18 and got
marked several documents at Ex.P.1 to 27 and so also
got marked M.O.1 to 4. Subsequent to closure of the
evidence of the prosecution, the accused was
subjected to examination as required under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. for explaining them to answer to the
incriminating materials in terms of evidence adduced
against the accused person, but the accused have
denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution.
Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to
adduce any defence evidence.
7. Subsequently, the trial Court heard the
argument advanced by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor and the defence counsel for the accused,
on close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 who
are the injured and got marked their injuries
certificates at Ex.P.23 and 25 and Ex.P.26,
respectively and the injury certificate issued by
P.W.13 being the doctor who subjected to examination
relating to the injuries sustained over the person. In
addition to that, P.W.18 being the doctor and he has
been subjected on X-Ray on the injured as per
Ex.P.10 and also X-ray film got marked at Ex.P.11.
The trial Court on close scrutiny of the fulcrum of
Ex.P.2, spot mahazar and so also evidence of P.W.4
and 5 and even the evidence of P.W.15 inclusive of
CT Scan report at Ex.P.5 which bears the signature of
P.W.16 and the contents in Ex.P.22 the FIR. But,
P.Ws.6 to 11 have been subjected to examination and
they did not withstood the version of their statements.
Therefore, their statements have been got marked as
per Ex.P.16 to 21. P.W.12, who is the investigating
officer received the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and based
upon the complaint, he recorded the FIR as per
Ex.P.22. These are all the evidence let in by the
prosecution inclusive of the injury certificate at
Ex.P.23, 25, 26 respectively of P.W.1, 2 and 3. On
appreciation of the evidence on the part of the
prosecution and the trial Court come to the conclusion
that the prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile
evidence for having rendering conviction against the
accused. Consequently, rendered the acquittal
judgment dated 20.03.2015 for the offences
punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
8. The acquittal judgment rendered by the trial
Court has been challenged by the victim/complainant
by preferring an appeal in Crl.A.No.29/2015 whereby
P.Ws.1 to 3 who are injured person and they have
been challenged the acquittal judgment rendered by
the trial Court but partly allowing and consequently
set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial
Court and convicted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC and whereby sentence to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each of the offences whereby held conviction
against accused Nos.1 and 2 which is incorporated in
the operative portion of the order. Whereas, in a
judgment rendered by the first appellate Court
exercising the power under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act in respect of the accused
Nos.1 and 2 and also directed not to commit such type
of offences repeatedly, the same is also incorporated
in the operative portions of the order rendered by the
first appellate Court. In addition to that, accused
Nos.1 and 2 shall execute bond as per Sections 3 and
4 of Probation of Offenders Act before the Court of
Civil Judge and JMFC, Aurad (B) to the satisfaction of
the Court. In addition to that order, the accused Nos.1
and 2 shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to
the injured complainants and also the injured who is
examined as P.Ws.1 to 3, these are all the order has
been incorporated in the judgment rendered by the
appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015. It is this
judgment and also the judgment of acquittal rendered
by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007 dated
20.03.2015 has been challenged in these petitions,
respectively by the accused and also the complainant
and the injured has been ranked in these criminal
revision petitions filed by them under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C.
9. The learned counsel Sri Sharanabasappa
K. Babashetty for accused and so also the respondent
No.2/accused in the connected case in Criminal
Revision Petition No.200023/2017 has taken me
through the contention made relating to the
registration of the crime against the accused in Crime
No.54/2007 initially for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34
of IPC. Subsequent to registration of the crime
against the accused by the jurisdictional police and
the investigation has been done thoroughly and laid
the charge sheet against the accused in
C.C.No.527/2007. The conviction rendered by the
first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015
dated 27.09.2016 by sentencing the accused by
imposing fine of Rs.500/- each in respect of the
offences which is incorporated in the operative portion
of the order. It is a surmises and conjuncture and on
this ground alone it requires to be intervened and
seeking for setting aside the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence to pay fine by the first appellate
court in the aforesaid appeal.
10. The second limb of argument advanced by
the counsel in this petition is that PW-1 is the
complainant and PW-2 is the husband of PW-1 and
PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1 and alleged that they
have sustained simple injuries. But doctor who
examined them and also stood for cross-examination
as to such injuries inflicted over a person of an injured
in case fell on the ground and also come into contact
with hard object that injuries could be caused. But
evidence of PW-13 being a doctor stated no bleeding
injuries are found over the person of PWs1 to 3.
PWs1 to 3 are the relatives of the petitioners being
arraigned as accused and moreover a civil suit was
pending between the parties such as the plaintiff and
defendant. Because of that pendency of the civil suit
and also the litigation relating to immovable property,
a case has been registered and the civil case has
turned into criminal case by holding a prosecution
against the accused and ended in conviction by
sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the
aforesaid counts of offences which is incorporated in
the operative portion of the order passed in the
aforesaid appeal. PWs-4 and 5 are the panch
witnesses, PWs-6, 7 and 10 are the circumstantial
witnesses whereas PWs-8, 9, 11 are the eyewitnesses
relating to the incident. They have been given an
evidence and all the aforesaid witnesses have treated
hostile and nothing worthwhile has been elicited on
the part of the prosecution and they did not support
the case of the prosecution. However, the evidence of
Investigating Officer has not been corroborated with
any independent witness, to support the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, the trial court in C.C.No.527/
2007 rendered acquittal judgment dated 20.03.2015
but the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2015 without appreciation of the evidence on
proper perspective and also misdirected the evidence
and so also misinterpreted the evidence inclusive of
giving more potentiality to the evidence of PWs-1, 2
and 3 held conviction by sentencing to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each. PW-14 is the Investigating Officer who
conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet
against the accused. There is no corroboration to
support the case of the prosecution with independent
witness. On this ground alone the judgment of
conviction requires intervention. If not, the accused
would be the sufferer and there shall be some
substantial miscarriage of justice would arise if not
intervened.
11. Lastly learned counsel submits that PWs-
15, 17 and 18 are the doctors and they have provided
treatment to the injured complainant and also injured
PWs-2 and 3. PW-16 who is a Radiologist and has
also given evidence on the part of the prosecution but
the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to prove by
facilitating the worthwhile evidence in respect of
ingredients of each offences therefore, the trial court
in C.C.No.527/2007 has rightly come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused and consequently
rendered the acquittal judgment. But the first
appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 has
erroneously come to the conclusion without
appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective and
also not given any credibility to the evidence of PW-13
who is a doctor and also the evidence of PWs-4 and 5
who are the panch witnesses and the circumstantial
witness of PWs-6, 7 and 10 inclusive of the evidence
of PW-14 being the Investigating Officer who
conducted the spot mahazar, in the present of the
panch witnesses and also secured the injury certificate
of PWs-1, 2 and 3. Therefore, learned counsel
submits that considering the grounds urged in this
criminal revision petition which is preferred by the
petitioner being the accused and so also respondent
No.2 being arraigned as accused No.2 in the
connected Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017
and prays to set aside the order passed by the first
appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated
27.09.2016 and consequent upon setting aside the
order passed by the first appellate Court, to confirm
the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in
C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 whereby held
acquittal of the offences punishable under Sections
324, 326, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
12. The learned counsel Sri Ravi K. Anoor for
respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Revision Petition
No.200092/2016 and so also appearing for the
petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition
No.200023/2017 whereby representing the counsel
namely Sri Avinash A. Uploankar and so also the
argument advanced by the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 respectively in
both these matters are counter to the argument
advanced by the counsel namely Sri Sharanabasappa
K. Babshetty that though the trial court had not
considered the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 who are
the injured witnesses and more so there was
worthwhile evidence whereby PW-13 being a doctor
who had provided treatment to them and issued
wound certificate at Exs.P-23, 25 and 26. PW-13
being the doctor has been subjected to cross-
examination on the part of the defence but there is no
dispute about the injured having sustained injuries as
indicated in the wound certificate and therefore the
evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 finds corroboration with
the evidence of PW-13 who is a doctor who has
provided treatment to them and issued wound
certificate. PW-14 being the Investigating Officer who
investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet
against the accused persons and whereby conducted
the spot mahazar as per Ex.P-2 in the presence of
PWs-4 and 5 and whereby PW-12 subscribed his
signature. PW-1 is the injured complainant. Complaint
received by PW-12 and based upon the complaint
criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as
per Ex.P-22. Injured PWs-1 to 3 have been subjected
to medical treatment by doctor who is examined as
PW-13 and issued wound certificate at Exs.P-23, 25
and 26 respectively. Therefore, their evidence are in
corroboration with the evidence of PW-14 being the
Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet and
secured the sonography report at Ex.P-7, X-Ray at
Exs.P-8 and P-10, USG Study report at Ex.P-9,etc.
and these are all the material evidence facilitated by
the prosecution despite of which the trial court in
C.C.No.527/2007 rendered the acquittal judgment
without giving any credibility to the evidence of PWs1
to 3 who are the injured witnesses and more so they
have sustained injuries which are indicated at
Exs.P23, 25 and 26. Therefore, the trial court had
erroneously given finding and rendered the acquittal
judgment. The same has been challenged by the
injured complainant and the other injured witnesses
being examined as PW-1 to 3, by preferring an appeal
before the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2015 whereby the first appellate court re-
appreciated the evidence and also analysed the
averments made in the complaint at Ex.P-1 so also
the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 coupled with the evidence
of PWs-12 and 14 and found that their evidence is
corroborated to each other and held that the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused
whereby they had quarrel with PWs-1 to 3 and has
rightly come to the conclusion by rendering a
conviction judgment against the accused and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each count of
the offences. Therefore, Criminal Revision Petition
No.200092/2016 preferred by the petitioners being
arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 does not call for
interference with the judgment rendered by the first
appellate court by sentencing to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
for each count of the offences.
13. In the Criminal Revision Petition, the scope
are very limited because appeal is concerned there
will be wider scope for re-appreciation of the evidence
inclusive of oral as well as documentary evidence but
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is only subjected to
intervention relating to the order passed by the trial
court and whereby divergent finding said to have been
issued by the first appellate Court. Even appeal has
been preferred by the aggrieved person by making
use of the provision of Section 372 proviso of the
Cr.P.C. The first appellate court has rightly come to
the conclusion and rendered conviction judgment and
ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the aforesaid
counts of offences. Therefore the petition filed by the
petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 does not call for
interference and the petition is devoid of merits
consequently prays to dismiss the petition by
confirming the sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each
as ordered by the first appellant Court in Criminal
Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016.
14. It is in this context of the contention made
by the learned counsel for the petitioners who are
arraigned as accused in C.C.No.527/2007 and so also
the contention made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners/complainant who are injured and have
preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017
and whereby seeking conviction against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324
and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, even though
sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each has been
ordered by the first appellate court.
15. However, keeping in view the rival
contentions made by the learned counsel for the
parties respectively, and inclusive of the Additional
SPP for the State which requires to be looked into the
evidence of the prosecution adduced so far to prove
the guilt of the accused. There is no dispute that PW1
who is a complainant and also PWs-2 and 3 being the
injured have been subjected to examination on the
part of the prosecution before the trial court. They
are alleged to have sustained some injuries indicated
in Exs.P-23, 25 and 26. Though the prosecution has
subjected to examination of those witnesses such as
PWs-1 to 3 and moreover they have been subjected to
medical treatment by PW-13 being the doctor, PW-1
has been extensively cross-examined by the defence
counsel and the same has been seen in their evidence
itself. PWs-1 to 3 and accused Nos.1 and 2 are the
relatives to each other and there was some civil
dispute pending in between them regarding to
immovable property but the dispute which was civil in
nature had turned into criminal in nature and
consequently criminal prosecution has been initiated
against the accused persons. However, the
prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to
examination of PWs1 to 18 and also got marked
several documents at Exs.P-1 to P27 inclusive of
marking M.Os.1 to 4 in order to prove the guilt of the
accused. PWs-1, 2 and 3 have sustained with injuries
by hitting with stone. PW-1 even though has given
evidence relating to the accused No.1 having
assaulted with means of stone and caused injuries.
PW-1 has stated in her evidence and the same has
been seen in her evidence itself. After the incident
PWs-1 to 3 were admitted to the Kusnoor Hospital and
were treated by PW-13 doctor and were also treated
in Bidar and then they were admitted to Ashwini
Hospital at Solapur. PW-13-doctor issued the wound
certificates Exs.P-23, 25 and 26. But PW-13 has been
subjected to cross-examination by the defence
counsel whereby it is elicited in his evidence that
there are chances of causing injures if a person come
in contact with hard surface as contended by the
counsel for the accused. However, PW-13 had
admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries
indicated at Exs.P23, 25 and 26 are likely to cause if
the person fell and come into contact with hard object.
Therefore, the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 run contrary to
the evidence of PW-13 doctor and further
contradictory to the evidence of PWs-17, 18 being the
doctor from Solapur and Hyderabad respectively who
provided treatment and also issued X-Ray report at
Ex.P-8, Sonography report at Ex.P7. But in the cross-
examination of PW-18 has been elicited that the police
have not collected the documents from PW-18 but the
injured persons had collected the X-ray and CT-Scan
report from Ashwini Hospital, Solpaur. PWs-1 to 3
themselves collected the said reports and produced
the same before the trial Court where the accused
were facing trial for the aforesaid offences. But PW-
14 being the Investigating Officer who laid the charge
sheet against the accused had not collected the
aforesaid X-Ray and CT-Scan report from the Ashwini
Hospital, Solapur whereby the injured PWs-1 to 3
have been subjected to medical examination and the
said Investigating Officer did not venture to collect the
aforesaid X-Ray and CT-Scan report for laying charge
sheet against the accused.
16. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1
to 3 inclusive of evidence of PW-13 doctor and so also
the evidence of PW-12 who received the complaint
Ex.P-1 and recorded the FIR and went to scene of
crime and thereafter PW-14 has proceeded for
investigation and after completion of the investigation
laid the charge sheet against the accused person, the
prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to
3 whereby they are the injured and given more
credibility to the evidence of those witnesses to prove
the guilt of the accused. The first appellate court has
given more credibility to the evidence of those injured
witnesses inclusive of the ingredients of Section 323,
324 even stated 325 and 326 of IPC relating to scope
of Section 319 and 320 of IPC whereby designated the
injuries. The accused abused in filthy language and
caused some grievous injuries by assaulting with
stone and also extending criminal intimidation to
them. The trial Court appreciated the evidence on
record in C.C.No.527/2007 and rendered acquittal
judgment relating to the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. The prosecution, in all examined PWs-1 to
18 and given more credibility to the evidence of PWs-
1 to 3 who are the injured persons who sustained
injuries as indicated in the wound certificate Exs.P23,
25 and 26. PWs-1 to 3 are the relatives of the
petitioners being arraigned as accused and more so
there was a civil suit pending amongst them because
of the immovable property which was emerged in
between the injured and the accused. But criminal
case has been registered by the complainant by filing
the complaint and prosecution has been launched and
the case in C.C.No.527/2017 had ended in acquittal
by giving findings and by assigning reasons for the
acquittal of the accused. The judgment rendered by
the trial Court was challenged by the complainant by
preferring an appeal before the first appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 whereby the first
appellate Court set aside the acquittal judgment of the
trial Court in its order dated 27.09.2016 and rendered
conviction judgment by sentencing the accused to pay
fine of Rs.500/- each which is incorporated in the
operative portion of the order.
18. PWs-4 and 5 are the panch witnesses,
PWs-6, 7 and 10 are the circumstantial witnesses and
PWs-8, 9 and 11 are the eyewitnesses and they have
stated in their evidence and their evidence has been
closely scrutinized. Even if re-appreciated their
evidence and they have not supported the case of the
prosecution relating to the accused having committed
the alleged offences and more so the evidence is
corroborated by supporting with independent evidence
relating to securing the conviction. PW-12 being
Investigating Officer who received the complaint at
Ex.P-1 and criminal law was set into motion,
thereafter PW-14 Investigating Officer laid the charge
sheet against the accused. There is no corroborating
evidence in respect of the theory of the prosecution by
examining any independent evidence and the same
can be seen in the evidence of prosecution. PWs1 to 3
who are the injured witnesses, have been subjected to
medical examination by PWs-15, 17 and 18. But their
evidence has not been corroborated with any
independent witness.
19. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it is
extensively addressed the issues insofar as Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and so also, circumstantial
evidence and even benefit of doubt in detail.
20. In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:
"We then pass on to another important point
which seems to have been completely missed by the
High Court. It is well settled that where on the
evidence two possibilities are available or open, one
which goes in favour of the prosecution and the
other which benefits an accused, the accused is
undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali
Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court
made the following observations:
Another golden thread which runs through the
web of the administration of justice in criminal cases
is that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to
be established by circumstantial evidence."
21. Whereas Section 134 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are
not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity
of evidence. Further, it is made clear that merit of the
statement is important and it is well known principle
of law that reliance can be based on the solitary
statement. Solitary statement means there shall be
some credibility of the witnesses and based on the
solitary statement of a witness, if Court comes to the
conclusion that the said statement is the true and
correct version of the case of the prosecution, it can
be considered, it is the domain of the trial Court.
22. Plurality of witnesses - in the matter of
appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number
of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is
important, as there is no requirement in law of
evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to
be examined to prove / disprove a fact. But the fact
means the facts stated in the complaint and equally
fulcrum of the facts drawn in the mahazar by the
investigating officer
23. However, in the instant case, on close
scrutiny of evidence of PWs1 to 3 who are injured and
more so the evidence of PW-12 who received the
complaint at Ex.P-1 and based upon the complaint
criminal law was set into motion and therefore the
Investigating Officer taken up the case for
investigation and investigated the case and laid the
charge sheet against the accused. Subsequent to the
charge sheet being laid by the Investigating Officer,
the accused faced the trial before the trial Court in
C.C.No.527/2007 whereby the trial Court after
appreciating the evidence facilitated by the
prosecution inclusive of the medical evidence and so
also the documents marked, rendered an acquittal
judgment for the offences punishable under Sections
504, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The
trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion in
rendering an acquittal judgment. However, the
petition is preferred by the petitioners/accused under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and also the petition is filed by
the injured PWs1 to 3 by challenging the order passed
by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 and inclusive of
the divergent finding issued by the first appellate
Court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015. However, the
domain vested with the first appellate Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and also to closely scrutinize
the evidence of the prosecution even oral and
documentary, but the first appellate Court was
misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence and
rendered a conviction judgment by sentencing to pay
fine of Rs.500/- which is indicated in the operative
portion of the judgment of the first appellate Court.
Therefore, the petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 contended
for intervention. If not intervened, certainly the
accused will be the sufferer and more so there shall be
some substantial miscarriage of justice would arise.
Accordingly, it needs to be interfered.
24. Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017
is filed by PWs 1 to 3 who are the injured challenging
the divergent finding issued by the first appellate
Court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated
27.09.2016 by rendering the conviction judgment and
seeking intervention of the acquittal judgment
rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 dated
20.03.2015. Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/
2016 is filed by the accused challenging the conviction
judgment rendered by the first appellate Court and
confirming the acquittal judgment rendered by the
trial Court. The contentions made in this Criminal
Revision Petition No.200023/2017 do not hold any
substance to interfere as sought for. Therefore, in
view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 filed
by the accused is allowed.
Consequently, the judgment in Criminal Appeal
No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Principal
District and Session Judge, Bidar is hereby set aside
and the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.527/2007
dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Aurad-B is hereby confirmed.
Consequent upon allowing the Criminal Revision
Petition No.200092/2016, that the Criminal Revision
Petition No.200023/2017 does not survive for
consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, shall
stand cancelled.
SD/-
JUDGE
BL/swk/RSP
