The State Of Karnataka vs Harris S/O Aleyab
2022 Latest Caselaw 5863 Kant

                              1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.441/2022 (A)
BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION,
D.K.DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
                                    ...APPELLANT
[BY SRI.V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP]

AND:

1.     HARRIS S/O ALEYAB,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION DRIVER,

2.     JAMEL W/O ALIABBA,
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION-HOUSE WIFE,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       PILICHANDIKALLU MANE,
       KUVATTU VILLAGE,
       BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
and (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
27.08.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1666/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, D.K.,
                                  2




ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S. 448, 323, 324 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Karnataka

under section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.08.2021 in

C.C.No.1666/2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Belthangady, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court')

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint

of P.W.1, Belthangady police have registered a case against the

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323,

324 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was alleged in the complaint

that on 18.10.2018 at about 4.15 p.m., the accused trespassed

into the house of C.W.8 and questioning the C.W.1 whereabouts

of the C.W.8. In reply, C.W.3 informed that, C.W.8 has gone to

Mangalore. After hearing the same, the accused, all of a sudden,

dragged the C.W.3 and 4 and assaulted them with the hands.

When C.W.1 tried to rescue, the accused also assaulted C.W.1

with the hands on her stomach and accused No.2 has thrown a

piece of tile on the C.W.2 which caused injury to the C.W.2.

Thereby, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused.

after serving the copies of the charge sheet to the accused and

after hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned

Public Prosecutor, the charge was prepared, read over and

explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. He

claimed to be tried and as such, the trial was commenced. In

order to prove the case of the prosecution, the complainant got

examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked two documents as

Ex.P1 and P2. In Para-22 of the judgment, it is clearly stated

that the complainant has not supported the case of the

prosecution and thereafter, with the permission of the Court,

prosecution declared P.W.1 as hostile witnesses and thereafter,

cross examined her and she has not supported the case of the

prosecution and she deposed that she and accused have

compromised the matter.

3. In para-23 of the judgment, the trial Court has

considered the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

LAWS(SC)-1996-7-136 in the case of Sathish Mehra Vs

Delhi Administration and others wherein it is held that "In

cases where there is no prospect of the case ending in

conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted

for holding a trial only for the purpose of the formally completing

the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date".

Subsequently, at para-24 has held even examining the other

witnesses, will not serve as the complainant and injured witness

himself turned hostile. Considering the same, the case was

ended in acquittal."

4. On perusal on the entire judgment and opinion, there

is no case for admitting this appeal as prosecution has examined

only one witness that too, the complainant and the eye witnesses

who has also turned hostile. Even this Court admits this appeal

which becomes futile exercise. If at all, the prosecution again

examine the witnesses, they could approach the Court either

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, there is no case for admitting the appeal. Accordingly,

appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JS/-