Karnataka High Court
The State By Police Sub Inspector vs N. Lokesh S/O. P. Narasimhaiah on 22 September, 2022
Bench: G Basavaraja
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100154 OF 2014 (397)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
EXTENSION POLICE STATION HOSPET
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
1. N. LOKESH
S/O. P. NARASIMHAIAH
AGE: 40 YEARS, WORKING AS CLERK IN KUSTIGI
JMFC COURT
2. N.P. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O. PUTTAIAH
AGE: 73 YEARS, RETD. KEB EMPLOYEER
3. PUTTA LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. N. P. NARASIMHAIAH
AGE: 63 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
2014
4. KUM. S.M. NAGARATHNA
D/O. MOODALAGIRI GOUDA
AGE: 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE ,
HOSPET
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S
397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED IN FAST
TRACK COURT III, HOSPET IN CRL.A.NO.42/2012 DATED
04.09.2012 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSPET IN C.C.NO.1634/2008 DATED 10.02.2008.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.09.2022 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
2014
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the State
seeking to set aside the Judgment and Order of acquittal
passed by the Fast Track Court - III at Hospet in Crl.A.
No.42/12 dated 04.09.2012 and the Judgment and
Order of acquittal passed by the Court of Additional Civil
Judge & JMFC, Hospet in C.C. No.1634/2008 dated
10.02.2012.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri. V.M. Banakar, learned
Addl. State Public Prosecutor appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. N.D. Gunde, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks
before the Trial Court.
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
4. The case of the prosecution is that C.W. 1 - H.T.
Nagaratna married accused No.1 - N. Lokesh on
18.12.2003. During marriage, cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, 8
tolas of gold ornaments were received by the accused as
dowry and the marriage solemnized and the expenses
were borne by the parents of C.W.1. After 3 months of
marriage the accused started suspecting the chastity of
C.W.1 and demanded to borrow cash of Rs.1,00,000/-
from any bank for the necessity of accused No.1,
accordingly the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was availed in the
name of accused No.1 from State Bank of India, Branch
at Koppal. Even then the accused No.1 started giving
mental and physical harassment to bring amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-. C.W.1 ultimately lodged a private
complaint before the Trial Court on 22.12.2007 and case
is registered in P.C. No.109/2007. The matter was
referred to CPI, Town Circle, Hospet under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Sub Inspector of Police, Extension
Police station, Hospet registered case in Crime
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
No.1/2008 against the accused No.1 and his relatives
under Section498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and also
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After investigation, CPI, TB Dam Circle, Hospet has
submitted charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for
the said offences.
5. After filing the charge-sheet, the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for
the alleged commission of offences. Case is registered in
C.C. No.1634/2008. After securing the presence of the
accused, the charges are framed against the accused for
the alleged commission of offences and same was read
over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, ten
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got
marked documents at Exhibits P1 to P7. On closure of
prosecution side evidence, accused are questioned
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating
evidence appearing against them. Accused have denied
the evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against
them. They have not chosen to lead any defence
evidence on their behalf. However, during the course of
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses Exs.D1
to D3 are marked. On Hearing the arguments of both
sides, the learned Magistrate has passed the Judgment
and acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 4 from the alleged
commission of offences.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, the
State has preferred an appeal under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C. in Crl.A. No.42/2012 before the Fast Track Court
- III, Hospet. The learned Presiding Officer, FTC - III,
Hospet has dismissed the Crl.A. No.42/2012 on
04.09.2012 by confirming the Judgment of acquittal
dated 10.02.2012 passed in C.C. No.1634/2008.
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of
dismissal passed by the FTC - III, Hospet dt 04.09.2012
in Crl.A. No.42/2012, the State has preferred this
Revision Petition.
9. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has
submitted the arguments that the Judgment and Order
of acquittal passed by both the Courts are contrary to
law. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the
evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective
manner. On these grounds, learned SPP sought for
allowing this Revision Petition.
10. As against this, the learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted the arguments that both the
Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record
and passed the impugned Judgments and Order of
acquittal. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere
with the impugned Judgments and on these grounds,
sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition.
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on
both sides, perused the records.
12. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its various Judgments, that the concurrent findings of
both the Courts below shall not be interfered with
normally, unless injustice is caused to the parties and an
error committed by the Appellate Court can be rectified
in revision under the provision of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
By keeping the aforesaid law in mind perused the
evidence of prosecution witnesses.
13. The complainant Smt. K.H. Nagaratna has filed the
complaint as per Ex.P1 on 22.12.2007. This complaint
was registered in P.C. No.109/2007 and the case was
referred for investigation to the CPI, Town Police
Station, Hospet. On the basis of this complaint, the
concerned police have registered the case in Crime
No.1/2008 for the commission of offences punishable
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
14. After investigation, the I.O. has submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the
alleged commission of offences punishable under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After filing of
charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance and case was registered in C.C.
No.1634/2008.
15. At the time of filing the complaint, the complainant
has not disclosed in the complaint as to the name and
address of witnesses. But during the course of
investigation, the I.O. has recorded the statement of
witnesses and accordingly the witnesses have been
examined before the Trial Court. The complainant Smt.
K.H. Nagaratna is examined as P.W.1.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
16. P.W.2 Sri. K.V.H. Shivashankar who is the elder
brother of P.W.1 has partly supported the case of the
prosecution. P.W.3 Smt. Vanajakshi who is the wife of
P.W.2 and P.W.4 Sri. Hanumantappa father in law of
P.W.2 have also partly supported to the case of
prosecution. P.W.5 Sri. D.S. Hanumantappa is not a
material witness and is only a hearsay witness. P.W.6
Sri. M. Mallesh has not supported the case of
prosecution. P.W.7 Sri. T. Sudhakara and P.W.8 Sri. T.
Venkappa have also not supported the case of
prosecution. P.W.9 Sri. L.Y. Shirakola has deposed as to
the part of investigation conducted and P.W.10 Sri. Y.
Babu Raju, PSI has deposed as to the filing of charge-
sheet against the accused.
17. Upon a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence of
prosecution witnesses along with the documentary
evidence, I find that there is no consistency in the
evidence of material prosecution witnesses. There are
material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence of all the prosecution
witnesses in a proper perspective manner and rightly
come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubts. The learned Presiding Officer, FTC - III, Hospet
has also re-appreciated the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and rightly confirmed the Judgment passed by
the Trial Court.
18. This Court has carefully and meticulously perused
the prosecution papers i.e. evidence of prosecution
witnesses along with documents which are marked
during the course of cross-examination on behalf of
accused as Exs.D1 to D8. I do not find any illegality in
the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below.
Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence
of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective manner
and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100154 of
reasonable doubts. Hence, impugned judgments does
not call for interference by this Court.
19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
The Judgment passed by the Court of
Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospet in
C.C. No.1634/2008 dated 10.02.2012 is
confirmed.
Return the Trial Court records along
with a copy of this Order to the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SAC
