Karnataka High Court
R Sateesh vs State By Honnali Police Station on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1304 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
R. SATEESH
SON OF RAMAKKARA HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF SORATURU, HONNALI
DAVANAGERE
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.V. SATEESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY HONNALI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P.)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA M
***
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
KARNATAKA
SECTION 397 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED
7-11-2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, HONNALI, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.517 OF 2007 AND
CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2014 DATED
5-9-2015.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015
ORDER
Heard Sri K.V. Sateesh Chandra, learned counsel for
the petitioner, and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence dated 7-11-2013 passed
by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Honnali, in Criminal Case No.517 of 2007 and confirmed
by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Davanagere, in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2014 dated
5-9-2015.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the
complainant-State.
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that
PW1-Haleshappa-complainant is the father-in-law of the
accused, PW2-Lokeshamma is the wife of PW1, and PW3-
Bhagya is the daughter of the complainant. PW3 was given
in marriage to the accused in the year 1998. The accused
was working in Agricultural Co-operative Society and he
was removed from service. On 13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m.,
PWs.1 and 2 had gone to the house of the accused to
enquire him as to why he lost his job, at that time, the
accused abused him in filthy language, intentionally
insulted them to provoke their breach of peace and
assaulted PW1 by hands. When PW2 came to pacify the
quarrel, the accused pushed her to the ground and she
sustained injury on her left hand. Immediately, PW3 came
to pacify the quarrel, the accused also assaulted her with
MO1-club and caused simple injuries on her left shoulder
and right leg. Hence, PW1 lodged a complaint. This led to
registration of F.I.R. and investigation.
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case
examined in all eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, got
marked five documents as per Exs.P1 to P5 and got
marked one material object as per MO1.
6. Based on oral and documentary evidence on
record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months with fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, the trial Court
acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the IPC.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and
the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed
by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has
contended that there is matrimonial dispute between the
accused and PW3. PWs.1 to 3 have made general and
omnibus allegations against the accused; independent
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution;
PWs.5 and 7, spot and seizure mahazar witnesses, have
not supported the case of the prosecution; ingredients of
Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC are not attracted. It is
further contended that PWs.1 to 3 have not stated in clear
terms as to how the accused assaulted them. The
prosecution evidence is full of omissions, contradictions
and improvements. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision
petition.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that PWs.1 to 3 have categorically stated about
the injuries sustained by PWs.2 and 3. Thus, oral evidence
and documentary evidence are corroborated with each
other. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
the accused. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the revision
petition.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned High Court
Government Pleader that this being a revision petition
against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the
First Appellate Court, the scope of interference on the
factual aspects is very limited.
11. As per the charge framed by the trial Court, on
13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel
with PWs.1 and 2 (parents of PW3), assaulted them and
abused them in filthy language and when PW3 came to
rescue, the accused assaulted her with club on her
shoulder and right leg.
12. In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution
examined:
a. PW1-Haleshappa, complainant, is the father-in-law
of the accused, husband of PW2 and father of PW3. He has
deposed that on 13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m., he came to the
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
house of the accused and enquired him as to why he is not
looking after his daughter properly and thus, the accused
picked up quarrel with PWs.1 to 3 and assaulted them and
evicted from the house. The accused also assaulted PW3
with MO1-club. In the cross-examination, he admits that
prior to the alleged incident, a complaint was registered by
PW3 against the accused in respect of cruelty and demand
for dowry and later, it was compromised.
b. PW2-Lokeshamma is the wife of PW1 and mother
of PW3. She has deposed that on the date of incident,
herself and PW1 had gone to the house of the accused to
enquire him as to why he is assaulting her daughter, thus,
the accused picked up quarrel with PW1 and assaulted him
and when she tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused
pushed her to the ground and caused injuries to her. She
further deposed that the accused also assaulted her
daughter, PW3 with MO1-club and thus, she also sustained
injuries and got admitted to the Government hospital,
Shivamogga.
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
c. PW3-Bhagya, wife of the accused and the daughter
of PWs.1 and 2, has deposed that on 13-6-2007 at
2:00 p.m., the accused assaulted her. Thus, PWs.1 and 2
came to her house and enquired the accused as to why he
assaulted her. Hence, the accused picked up quarrel with
her parents, assaulted them and abused them in filthy
language. The accused also assaulted her with the club
and evicted PWs.1 to 3 from the house. Therefore, she
and her parents went to the Government hospital, Honnali
and Shivamogga, for treatment.
d. PW4-Kavitha, sister-in-law of the accused, is an
eyewitness and spot mahazar witness, but she turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution.
e. PW5-Basavarajappa is a witness to spot mahazar.
He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
f. PW6-Dr. N. H. Girish, who treated PWs.2 and 3,
has stated that on 13-6-2007 at 8:45 p.m., PW3 came
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
with the history of assault, he examined her and found the
following injuries:
a. Swelling on left shoulder (over old scar)
b. Pain over right knee.
Hence, he referred PW3 to higher treatment at
Shivamogga and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P4.
As per his opinion, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 would
be caused by the club.
He has further deposed that on the same day at
8:50 p.m., he examined Rudreshamma and found the
following injuries:
a. Pain over left shoulder
b. Abrasion over left chest.
Hence, he referred PW2 to higher treatment at
Shivamogga and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P5.
g. PW7-Siddanagowda is a witness to spot mahazar.
He too turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
h. PW8-U. H. Sathenahalli, Inspector of Police, who
conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet against
the accused.
13. On perusal of the evidence on record, the
accused has not disputed the occurrence of the incident.
PWs.2 and 3 are injured. They have stated about the
incident and in their cross-examination, they have
admitted that the accused is husband of PW3. Testimony
of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his
presence at the time of crime and is unlikely to spare his
actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone.
Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured
witness. The close relatives of the injured are unlikely to
falsely implicate anyone. Sometimes such relationship is
guarantee of truth. Where feelings turn high on enmity,
prudence may compel the Court to seek corroboration.
Mere relationship does not make anyone interested and
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
does not discredit the evidence of an eyewitness.
Evidence of an interested witness can be acted upon if it is
found reliable after careful scrutiny. Relationship is not
sufficient to discredit a witness unless motive to spare the
real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is
shown and the defence case of false implication has to be
considered carefully.
14. In view of the aforesaid background, on perusal
of evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it appears that PWs.1 and 2
themselves came to the house of accused, enquired him
as to why he assaulted their daughter, PW3. It is their
evidence that the accused abused PW1. Hence, PW2 came
to his rescue and the accused pushed her to the ground
and thus, she sustained injury. Therefore, PW3 came to
rescue of her parents, at that time, the accused assaulted
her with MO1-club on her shoulder and right knee.
However, PWs.1 to 3 have stated that the accused
assaulted them and they sustained injuries, but they have
not stated as to where the accused exactly assaulted
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
them, whether with hands, legs or club. They have not
specifically described the nature of injuries sustained by
them and the nature of article used for assault.
15. PW6-Dr. N. H. Girish has deposed that PWs.2
and 3 came with the history of assault, he examined them
and issued Wound Certificates as per Exs.P4 and P5
respectively.
16. From perusal of the evidence of
PW6-Dr. N. H. Girish, one Rudreshamma took treatment
from him. In fact, the name of PW2 is Lokeshamma. But
the prosecution has not clarified that Rudreshamma is
none other than Lokeshamma. Further, PW6 referred
PWs.2 and 3 for higher treatment, but they failed to take
further treatment. PW6 further stated that the injuries
mentioned in Wound Certificates-Exs.P4 and P5 were
caused four to five days prior to the incident which clearly
establishes that the swelling or pain as mentioned in
Exs.P4 and P5 caused four to five days prior to the
incident. It shows that prior to the alleged incident, there
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
was old scar on the person of PW3. It shows that in order
to falsely implicate the accused, PWs.1 to 3 have made
general and omnibus allegations against the accused as
PW3 is the only daughter to PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the
oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to injuries
sustained by PWs.2 and 3 are not corroborated with
medical evidence.
17. After giving careful thought on the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3, PW1-complainant, in his complaint, has stated
that he along with his wife had gone to the house of the
accused to enquire him as to why he left his job, but in the
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 before the trial Court, they have
deposed that PWs.1 and 2 had gone to the house of the
accused to enquire him as to why he assaulted their
daughter, PW3. Thus, there are material contradictions in
this regard. However, as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,
the accused assaulted PW1 with his hands and PW3 with
MO1-club, but they have not described on which part of
the body, they sustained injuries. Simply, they have stated
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
that the accused assaulted them and he intentionally
insulted them. Thereby, they have made general and
omnibus allegations against the accused. The trial Court,
on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of PWs.1 to 3,
convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. There is
no clear, corroborative and consisting evidence against the
accused to attract Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC. The
evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire
confidence to convict the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and
thus, he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I pass the
following
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 7-11-2013 passed by the Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Honnali, in Criminal
Case No.517 of 2007 which is confirmed by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere,
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43892
in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2014 dated 5-9-2015 are
hereby set aside.
iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
iv. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner
shall be refunded to him.
v. Bail bond of the petitioner stands cancelled.
Registry is directed to send back the trial Court
records with a copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
