Karnataka High Court
Smt Savithramma vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO.861 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SAVITHRAMMA
W/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
MUNICIPAL MEMBER
R/O HASAMANE
BHDADRAVATHI.
Digitally signed
by B A 2. HEMANTHA KUMAR
KRISHNA
KUMAR S/O SOUDEPUTTA
Location: High
Court of AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
Karnataka
R/O JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA
5TH CORSS, HOSAMANE
RIGHT SIDE, BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
PIN - 576 126.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.N. RADHA KRISHNA., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHADRAVATHI PAPER
TOWN POLICE, BHADRAVATHI
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, IN
C.C.NO.2382/2010 DTD. 11.11.2011 AND CONFIRMED IN
CRL.A.NO.902/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI, DTD.
22.09.2014.I.A.NO.1/2014.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
11.11.2011 passed by the Civil Judge & Addl. JMFC,
Bhadravathi, in C.C.No.2382/2010, and the judgment and
order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court,
Bhadravathi, in Crl.A.No.902/2011.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records
that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are, on 21.12.2009 at about 2.30 p.m., while CWs-1 &
2 were sitting in Ganapathi Pendal at Paper Town, Bhadravathi,
the petitioners allegedly called from their mobile phone bearing
No.970555602 to the mobile phone of the complainant bearing
No.9741885868 and abused him in filthy language and also
threatened to kill him. In this regard, a complaint was lodged,
based on which the police had registered the case against the
petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Sections
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
506, 120-B read with 34 IPC. After investigation, the police had
filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 506 read with 34 IPC.
4. Since the petitioners claimed to be tried before the
Trial Court, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution
had examined seven witnesses as PWs-1 to 7 and got marked 5
documents in support of its case as Exs.P-1 to P-5. In support
of the defence, no evidence was led nor any document was
marked. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated
11.11.2011 had convicted the petitioners for the offence under
Section 506 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
order of conviction and sentence, petitioners had preferred
Crl.A.No.902/2011 which was dismissed by the Fast Track
Court, Bhadravathi, on 22.09.2014. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioners have filed this revision petition
before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
courts below have erred in convicting the petitioners for the
offence under Section 506 IPC. He submits that the
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
complainant was not examined before the Trial Court and based
on the evidence of PWs-1 & 6 who are only hear-say witnesses,
the Trial Court has recorded the order of conviction which is
bad in law. He submits that PWs-1 & 6 could not have heard
the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant,
as the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened the
complainant over phone. He submits that the complaint
averments do not disclose that PWs-1 & 6 had an occasion to
hear the conversation between the petitioners and the
complainant and their very presence at the spot becomes very
doubtful having regard to the nature in which their name is
inserted in the complaint.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned
judgment and order and has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed
on both sides and also perused the material available on
record.
8. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the
trial, the complainant - Nataraj had died. The prosecution in
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
order to establish its case against the petitioners, therefore,
had solely relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 & 6 who are said
to have over-heard the conversation between the petitioners
and the complainant - Nataraj. PWs-1 & 6 have stated that the
complainant had put his phone on loud speaker, and therefore,
they could over-hear the conversation between the petitioners
and the complainant.
9. In normal course, if a person is speaking to the other
over mobile phone, it would not be possible for others to over-
hear the conversation unless his phone is put on loud speaker.
From the perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the
complainant has not stated that he had put his phone on loud
speaker when the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened
him on the date of incident. In fact, the name of PWs-1 & 6
appears to have been subsequently inserted in the complaint
which gives rise to a doubt as to the very presence of the said
witnesses at the spot when the petitioners allegedly are said to
have abused and threatened the complainant over phone.
Except the evidence of PWs-1 & 6, there is no other material to
prove that the petitioners have abused and threatened the
complainant over phone. The conversation between the
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
petitioners and the complainant has not been recorded.
Therefore, when the very presence of these witnesses i.e.,
PWs-1 & 6, becomes doubtful, having regard to the insertion
made in the complaint and also having regard to the fact that
the complainant had not mentioned in the complaint that he
had put is mobile phone on loud speaker at the time of alleged
conversation between himself and the accused persons, the
courts below could not have recorded a finding of guilt against
the petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC solely
based on the deposition of PWs-1 & 6.
10. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the courts below were not justified in convicting the
petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC, and
therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the following order:
11. This revision petition is allowed. The judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 11.11.2011 passed by
the Court of Civil Judge & Addl. JMFC, Bhadravathi, in
C.C.No.2382/2010, and the judgment and order dated
22.09.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
Crl.A.No.902/2011, are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted
of the offence under Section 506 IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
