Karnataka High Court
H G Lokesh vs The State By Holehonur Police ... on 1 August, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 993 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
H.G. LOKESH
S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O AGRADAHALLI CAMP
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MANJULA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY HOLEHONUR
POLICE STATION - 577 201.
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W SECTION 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 23.08.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.4104/2005 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C, BHADRAVATHI
AND CONFIRMING THE SAME BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI
ON 13.08.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.179/2012.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 23.08.2012 in C.C.No.4104/2005 on
the file of the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,
Bhadravathi and its confirmation judgment and order dated
13.08.2015 in Crl.A.No.179/2012 on the file of the Court of IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at
Bhadravathi, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings
recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused
is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353,
504, 186, 187, 189, 427, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC').
2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court
and appellant before the Appellate Court.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the prosecution is that, on
22.01.2005, at about 2.45 p.m., PW.1 Madappa, P.S.I. of
Holehonnur Police Station, was working along with his staff in
respect of Crime No.7/2005 pertaining to one Mr.Prakash S/o.
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
Vadda Hanumanthappa, who was arrayed as accused in that
case. It is stated that, the petitioner being an Advocate,
entered into the Police Station and enquired PW.1 as to why he
had arrested Mr.Prakash s/o.Vadda Hanumanthappa and took
the file pertaining to Crime No.7/2005 to his hand and after
seeing the same, he started abusing PW.1 in a filthy language
and tore the FIR. Further, the petitioner stood up and dragged
PW.1 by holding the collar of his shirt, in that scuffle, the star
loop of the shirt of PW.1 was torn. Immediately, the matter
was pacified at the intervention of other staff of the Police
Station. Thereafter, it is further stated that, the petitioner had
threatened PW.1 that, he would not spare him and also
threatened that he would break his hands and legs etc. In that
regard, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner herein.
After conducting investigation, a charge sheet was submitted
by the jurisdictional police for the offences stated supra.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined, in all, 7 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 7
and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. The Trial Court after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
convicted the petitioner for the above said offences. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the
judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this
revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.
5. Heard Smt Manjula D, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below are opposed to the evidence and facts on record. Hence,
the concurrent findings of conviction required to be set aside.
7. It is further submitted that, the alleged incident
took place in the police station. As per the evidence of PW.4,
when PW.4 went to the police station, he had seen that there
were more than 200 person gathered in front of the police
station. Even though, there are independent witnesses
available in the police station, they have not been cited as
witnesses to the incident. In the absence of the evidence of
independent witnesses, conviction cannot be recorded on the
basis of the official witnesses who are interested witnesses.
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
The Trial Court and the Appellate Court erred in not considering
this aspect and recorded the conviction. The said conviction
required to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that, even though the alleged
incident had not taken place, the complainant filed a false
complaint against the petitioner to take revenge against him.
The Courts below failed to consider the defence of the
petitioner and convicted the petitioner which is erroneous and
unsustainable.
9. It is further submitted that, the Courts below failed
to appreciate the evidence of interested witnesses properly.
Even though the official witnesses namely PW.1 - Police Sub-
Inspector, PW.5 - C.P.I., PW.6 - A.S.I., PW.7 - Head Constable
of Holehonnur Police Station, have supported the case of
prosecution, the independent witnesses have not supported.
Such being the fact, the Courts below should have acted
diligently and if any doubt is created in the mind of the Court
that the incident might not have occurred in the police station,
the petitioner should have been benefited in the form of
acquittal. The Courts below failed to extend the benefit of
doubt to the petitioner and recorded the conviction, as such
the findings of the Courts below in convicting the petitioner
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
required to be set aside. Having submitted thus, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
(for short 'HCGP') justifying the concurrent findings and
submits that, the evidence of official witnesses cannot be
discarded, if it inspires the confidence of the Court. Even the
conviction can also be based upon such evidence.
11. It is further submitted that, the petitioner being an
Advocate, went inside the police station in connection with
arrest of Mr. Prakash s/o.Vadda Hanumanthappa in Crime
No.7/2005 and sat in front of PW.1 and took the FIR, after
going through the FIR, he started abusing PW.1 in filthy
language and tore the FIR and also tore the star loop of the
shirt of PW.1. PWs.1, 6 and 7 have consistently supported the
case of the prosecution and nothing has been elicited to
disbelieve their evidence. Since PW.1 being a victim of the
crime, his evidence assumes significance and the Courts below
acted upon the evidence of PWs.1, 6 and 7 and rightly
convicted the petitioner. Hence, the findings of the Courts
below may not be interfered with. Having submitted thus,
learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
12. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
judgments of the Courts below, the points which arise for my
consideration are:
i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below in convicting the petitioner
for the offences under Sections 353, 504, 186,
187, 189, 427, 506 of IPC are sustainable?
ii) Whether the petitioner has made out
grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by both the Courts below for conviction?
13. This Court being a Revisional Court, having regard
to the scope and ambit envisaged to appreciate the facts and
law, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence
and also the law, to ascertain as to whether any illegality or
perversity or error committed by the Courts below in recording
the conviction.
14. In order to avoid repetition of the facts of the case,
it is relevant to refer the evidence of PW.1, who was working as
Police Sub-Inspector of Holehonnur Police Station. According to
PW.1, the petitioner herein had entered inside the police station
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
and sat in front of him and took the FIR. After reading the said
FIR, he tore it by abusing him in a filthy language and the
petitioner held the uniform of PW.1 and dragged him, in that
scuffle, the star loop of the uniform of PW.1 was torn.
15. On careful reading of the evidence of PW.1, it
appears that, before the petitioner went inside the police
station, the FIR pertaining to Crime No.7/2005 was sent to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate. When the FIR was sent to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate prior to arrival of the petitioner to the
police station, tearing the FIR by the petitioner appears to be
inconceivable and unbelievable. When a specific question was
put to PW.1 that, whether the said incident had been
mentioned in the Station House Diary, PW.1 admits that, it was
mentioned in the Station House Diary, however, he has stated
that, the said diary was not produced before the Court.
16. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are the witnesses
to the spot mahazar and also seizure mahazar may not be of
much significance since they have turned hostile. The
prosecution cited these witnesses to seizure mahazar to show
that, the petitioner had torn the FIR and torn the star loop of
PW.1 and those two items were seized in their presence.
When the independent witnesses have not supported the case
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
of the prosecution in respect of seizure of torn pieces of FIR
and star loop of the uniform of PW.1, it cannot be construed
that, the prosecution has proved the case regarding the
incident. However, both the Courts without appreciating the
evidence properly, acted on the evidence of interested
witnesses/ official witnesses and convicted the petitioner which
appears to be erroneous and illegal.
17. When the independent witnesses have turned
hostile, the Trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence
of official witness with great caution and circumspection. The
evidence of PW.4 discloses that, at the time, when he had been
to police station, there were 200 persons gathered in front of
police station is accepted as true, the case of prosecution that
none of the independent witnesses were present appears to be
doubtful and not acceptable.
18. Now, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TAKDIR SAMSUDDIN v.
STATE OF GUJARAT1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that, while appreciating the evidence of witness considering
him as the interested witness, the Court must bear in mind that
AIR 2012 SC 37
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
the term "interested" postulates that the witness must have
some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the
other convicted for some other reason.
19. Admittedly, in this case, the evidence of all the
witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution are police
officials working in the police station. Even though, they have
stated that, FIR was torn and uniform star loop was also torn,
independent witnesses namely PWs.2 and 3 have turned hostile
and not supported the seizure mahazar of the said items which
are marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. Considering the overall facts
and circumstances of the case which creates a doubt about the
alleged incident, that doubt should have been benefited to the
petitioner as a benefit of doubt, which was not extended to the
petitioner by the Courts below. Hence, interference with the
concurrent findings is justified and the concurrent findings of
conviction required to be set aside.
20. In the light of the observations made above, the
points which arose for my consideration are answered as
under:-
Point No.(i) - "Negative"
Point No.(ii) - "Affirmative"
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 993 of 2015
21. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23.08.2012 passed in
C.C.No.4104/2005 by the Court of the I
Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi
and judgment and order dated 13.08.2015
passed in Crl.A. No.179/2012 by the Court of IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga,
Sitting at Bhadravathi, are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences under
Sections 353, 504, 186, 187, 189, 427, 506 of
IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss
