Mr Lathif Khan vs State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 4987 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.507/2013

BETWEEN:

1.     MR. LATHIF KHAN
       S/O LATE MAJID KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

2.     MR. INAYATHULLA KHAN
       S/O LATHIF KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

3.     MR. REHAMATH KHAN
       S/O LATHIF KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT
       DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
       SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
       BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.        ... PETITIONERS

         (BY SRI H.V.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
               SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SARJAPURA POLICE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125.              ... RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
                                    2



     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE    THE  JUDGMENT,    CONVICTION    AND   SENTENCE
DATED:30.03.2010, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
AND JMFC, ANEKAL IN C.C.NO.1920/2007 AND ALSO ORDER
DATED:27.03.2013 PASSED BY THE I/C PRESIDING OFFICER,
FTC-VI, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4/2010.

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


                              ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed to set aside the

judgment, conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2010, passed by

the Principal Civil judge (Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Anekal in

C.C.No.1920/2007 and also the judgment date 27.03.2013

passed by the I/c Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -VI, Anekal,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal

No.4/2010.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution

before the Trial Court is that on 04.06.2007 at about 10.30 a.m.

at Dommasandra Village, these petitioners picked up quarrel

with P.Ws.1 to 3 and assaulted with club and caused simple

injuries and also caused life threat.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the case,

examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to P9(a) and also the material objects are

marked as M.Os.1 to 3. The petitioners/accused have not led

any defense evidence before the Trial Court.

5. The trial Judge after considering both oral and

documentary evidence convicted the petitioners for an offence

punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine

of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In

respect of the conviction for an offence punishable under Section

506 of IPC, the petitioners are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and not

awarded any substantive sentence.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order on sentence, an appeal in Crl.A.No.4/2010 is filed before

the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed

the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision

petition is filed before this Court.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners in this revision petition is that there

were case and counter case. Though conviction was made in

both the cases before the Trial Court, the Appellate Court in

counter case, acquitted the complainants in that case. The

learned counsel would vehemently contend that both the Trial

Court as well as the Appellate Court failed to take note of the

fact that there is aggressor and admittedly they have criminally

trespassed into the property of the petitioners herein and

assaulted. The Trial Court also failed to consider the statement

made by the accused and the document produced under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. Except the vindictive witness Nos.1 to 5 and the

rest of the witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent - State would submit that the

prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of injured witnesses

and these petitioners have inflicted injuries with the club and as

a result they have sustained the simple injuries. The learned

High Court Government Pleader also would submit the

documents Exs.P7 and P8 are the Wound Certificates, which

have been marked. The Doctor examined as P.W.11. Hence,

particularly the injured witness evidence as well as the medical

evidence and also the documentary proof regarding they have

sustained the injuries, both the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case against the petitioners

herein.

9. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the points that

would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in not appreciating the material available on record and passed any perverse order. Whether it requires an interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction?

(ii) What order?

Point No.(i):

10. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, the main contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioners is that there were case and

counter case, the same is not in dispute. In this case, mainly

the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the injured

witnesses. Apart from that, relied upon the documentary

evidence Exs.P7 and P8 - Wound Certificates and also the

evidence of P.W.11 - Doctor. The Trial Court also considering

the evidence of injured witnesses comes to the conclusion that

nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of injured witnesses

and the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding assault i.e.,

PWs.2 and 3. The defense has not been specifically eliciting

anything about discredit the testimony and also the common

intention of the petitioners herein. The Trial Court also

considering the consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to

the common intention of the accused persons and assault made

by them and also on the basis of the medical evidence,

convicted the petitioners. The Appellate Court also in an appeal

in detail discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses mainly

PWs.1 to 3, who are the injured witnesses. P.W.5 is also another

injured witness. He also spoken corollary to the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 and they have reiterated that assaulted with clubs.

Apart from that, they have given the threat. The Appellate Court

in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.21 to 24, taking into note of

the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 and also the evidence of P.W.11,

the Doctor, who treated the injured persons. On re-appreciation,

the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no error is

committed by the Trial Court.

11. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, particularly, the evidence of

PWs.1, 2 and 5, who are the injured witnesses, apart from that,

the medical evidence of P.W.11 and the material objects were

also seized, which are marked as MOs.1 to 3 and the same are

identified by the injured witnesses. Merely because in the

counter case, the accused persons are acquitted is not a ground

to acquit these petitioners also. There are no serious

discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution and the evidence of

PWs.1 to 5 and P.W.11 corroborate with each other including the

medical evidence. Hence, I do not find any ground to invoke the

revisional jurisdiction and only this Court can invoke the

revisional jurisdiction if material available on record is not

considered by both the Courts in a perspective manner and

unless perversity is made out, the question of interfering with

the concurrent finding of both the Courts does not arise.

12. With regard to the sentence part is concerned,

assault was made with clubs. However, the Trial Court taken a

lenient view in sentencing them and only imposed a fine of

Rs.3,000/- each and not awarded any substantive sentence

against the petitioners herein. When such being the factual

aspects of the case, regarding sentence is also, it is not a fit case

to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, I answer

point No.(i) as 'negative'.

Point No.(ii):

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

following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST/cp*