Pattacheruvanda Ponnanna @ Kiran vs State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 5786 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.497/2013

BETWEEN:

1.     PATTACHERUVANDA PONNANNA @ KIRAN
       S/O.LATE DOREYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       RESIDENT OF CHELVARA VILLAGE,
       MADIKERI TALUK 571 201

2.     PATTACHERUVANDA CHARMANA @ KISHU
       S/O LATE DOREYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       RESIDENT OF CHELVARA VILLAGE,
       MADIKERI TALUK-571 201         ... PETITIONERS

           (BY SRI S.S.SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAPOKLU POLICE STATION,
MADIKERI-571 201.                        ... RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE
AD-HOC DISTRICT, JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.128/2008  DATED   19.04.2013  AND    JUDGMENT   OF
                                    2



CONVICTION PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC, MADIKERI IN C.C.NO.906/2008, DATED 19.11.2008.

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

                             ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section

401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records, set aside the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.04.2013

passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Crl.A.No.128/2008 and the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.11.2008

passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC., Madikeri,

in C.C.No.906/2008 and acquit the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

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

that on 30.01.2008 at about 2:30 p.m, at Chelavara village, near

the residential house of Changamaiah, at Chelavara

Cheyyandane road when CWs.1 to 7 were traveling in a

Departmental Jeep, the accused persons in furtherance of

common intention restrained CW.1 from moving further, among

them accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 on his chest and accused

No.2 dragged CW.1 here and there and assaulted him with his

fist and also obstructed CW.1 and others from executing from

their public service and also intimidated injury to the life of CW.1

and prayed to take appropriate action against the accused.

Based on the complaint-Ex.P1, the Police have registered a case,

investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 332, 353, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. The accused persons were secured before the Trial

Court and the prosecution examined the witnesses as PWs.1 to 9

and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P4(a). The

petitioners/accused have not led any defence evidence before

the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, convicted all the

accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

323, 332, 353, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The substantive

sentence of one year is imposed for the offence punishable

under Section 332 of IPC. For other offences also imposed the

sentence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order on sentence, an appeal was filed before the Appellate

Court in Crl.A.No.128/2008 by the accused persons. The

Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, acquitted accused No.3 and

confirmed the conviction in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2.

However, modified the sentence and reduced the same to six

months. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this

Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioners would vehemently contend that the witnesses who

have been examined almost all witnesses are the official

witnesses and all are interested witnesses. The learned counsel

also would submit that in 313 statement though taken the

signature of individual accused persons and all 313 statements

are stereo typed i.e., carbon copy. The learned counsel also

would submit that no other independent witnesses have been

examined before the Trial Court. It is emerged in the evidence

that there were 30 persons when the incident was taken place.

Hence, the evidence of the prosecution not inspires the

confidence of the Court and both the Courts have committed an

error in convicting the petitioners and it requires an interference

of this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent - State would submit that

P.W.1-Range Forest Officer, in his evidence, categorically

deposed that these petitioners along with accused came and

wrongfully restrained when they were proceeding questioned

where is Range Forest Officer and when he alighted from the

vehicle, accused No.1 fisted on his chest and accused No.2 also

fisted on his back and dragged, at that time, he was on official

duty and prevented him from discharging his duty. This witness

was cross-examined and nothing is elicited with regard to the

incident is concerned, except suggesting that a false case has

been registered. The learned counsel also would submit that the

other witnesses were also present along with P.W.1 and they

have also supported the case of the prosecution. The learned

counsel also would submit that the Doctor, who has been

examined before the Trial Court as P.W.8. His evidence confirms

the incident and the injuries found on P.W.1. The learned

counsel would submit that having considered the material

witnesses particularly the injured as well as the other official

witnesses and also the medical evidence, the Trial Court as well

as the Appellate Court considered the material and rightly

convicted and sentenced the petitioners.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State and on perusal of the material available

on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this

Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioners?

(ii) Whether the Appellate Court also committed an error in not properly appreciating the material on record in confirming the conviction in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2?

(iii) Whether this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction?

     (iv)    What order?


Point Nos.(i) to (iii):

9. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, the very case of the

prosecution is that when P.W.1 along with other official

witnesses were on official duty, these petitioners along with

accused No.3 committed the offences of wrongfully restraining

P.W.1 and other officials and caused life threat and also

assaulted and prevented them from discharging of the public

duty. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1,

who is the injured witness and he also reiterates the evidence in

terms of the allegations made in the charge-sheet.

10. Having considered the cross-examination portion of

P.W.1, not disputed the incident. In respect of assault is

concerned, except eliciting that 30 to 40 persons were there at

the spot, the other witnesses are official witnesses i.e., forest

guards, who were also there along with P.W.1. P.W.5 is also one

more Range Officer and all of them reiterated regarding the

incident is concerned and they are the eyewitnesses. The main

witness is P.W.8, the Doctor, who examined the P.W.1. He also

says that on 30.01.2008 around 6'o clock he had examined the

injured P.W.1 and he had seen one contusion injury on right

shoulder measuring 2 x 2 cm and another contusion injury on

the left side shoulder measuring 3 x 3 cm, and those injuries are

simple in nature. P.W.9 is the ASI., who registered the case and

investigated the matter.

11. Having perused the material available on record, no

doubt, witnesses - PWs.1 to 7 are the official witnesses and

belongs to the very same Department. It has to be noted that

the Court cannot discard the evidence only on the ground that

they are the official witnesses and also the interested witnesses.

It is also important to note that when they were on public duty,

an allegation made is that these two petitioners wrongfully

restrained them and fisted on the back and dragged him. To

substantiate the same, the medical evidence of P.W.8, the

Doctor, who examined the injured at 6'o clock on the same day

found injuries on the shoulder of P.W.1. The eyewitnesses

evidence corroborate with the medical evidence.

12. In the cross-examination of official witnesses also

nothing is elicited with regard to these persons are having

enmity or ill will against the petitioners to wrongly implicate

them as accused persons. Nothing is elicited in the cross-

examination also that there was an ill will prior to this incident.

No doubt, in the evidence it is emerged that there were 30 to 40

persons and the villagers have pacified the incident and also not

examined the independent witnesses. Mainly because the

independent eyewitnesses were not examined, this Court cannot

discredit the evidence of injured witness and other official

witnesses. In order to prove the factum that they are the

interested witnesses also, nothing is elicited in the cross-

examination.

13. Having considered both oral and documentary

evidence placed on record including the Wound Certificate as

well as the oral evidence of the witnesses and also on perusal of

the judgment of the Trial Court, the Trial Court also in paragraph

No.20 taken note of analyzing all the oral and documentary

evidence placed on record discussed with regard to the timings

as well as the evidence of the witnesses, convicted the

petitioners for the said offences.

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

evidence available on record also taken note of the reasoning

given by the Trial Court, particularly, even extracted the

evidence of the witnesses in paragraph No.29 considering the

evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and taken note of particular overt act

made against the petitioners and also acquitted accused No.3.

Apart from that, even taking into note of the gravity of the

offences and reduced the sentence to six months as substantive

sentence for the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC.

15. It is also important to note that the Appellate Court

also taken note of the ingredients of other offences punishable

under Sections 323 and 353 of IPC and comes to the conclusion

that the said ingredients are also merges with the offence under

Section 332 of IPC. Hence, reduced the sentence. In the

circumstances, I do not find any error committed by the

Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence confirming

the judgment of the Trial Court. However, it is noticed that

P.W.1 is the injured and no doubt he is the Range Forest Officer.

He was subjected to assault when he was on official duty and the

medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. But

the fact is that the incident was taken place suddenly when

P.W.1 and others were on the way to the village and they were

wrongfully restrained and an incident was taken place. Prior to

that there was no enmity. Apart from that, there was no motive

also. The Court has to take note of the nature of injuries as

mentioned in the Wound Certificate - Ex.P3, wherein, mentioned

contusion on the right and left intra clavicle area. Hence, it is

appropriate to reduce the sentence from six months to three

months.

16. With regard to the offence punishable under Section

341 of IPC is concerned, only fine amount of Rs.300/- each is

imposed, the same does not require any interference.

17. With regard to the offence punishable under Section

332 of IPC is concerned, only fine amount of Rs.500/- each is

imposed, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each in view of

reducing the substantive sentence from six months to three

months.

18. With regard to the offence punishable under Section

506 of IPC is concerned, the substantive sentence is set aside

and fine is enhanced from Rs.300/- each to Rs.1,000/- each.

Point No.(iv):

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.04.2013 passed by

the Ad-hoc District Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Crl.A.No.128/2008, is hereby modified to three months from six months sentence in respect of an offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC.

(iii) In respect of an offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC is concerned, fine amount of Rs.500/- each imposed, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each in view of reducing the substantive sentence from six months to three months.

      (iv)    In respect of the offence punishable under
              Section    506    of    IPC    is     concerned,        the

substantive sentence is set aside and fine is enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- each.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*