Karnataka High Court
T Srinivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2023
Bench: R. Nataraj
-1-
CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 470 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
T. SRINIVAS
S/O. THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, 5TH CROSS,
SIDDAPAJI NILAYA
ISHWAIRAIAH LAYOUT
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
DODDAKALLASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560052.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN PS
BANGALORE-560004
Digitally REPRESENTED BY SPP
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
SUMA
Location:
HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI.K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
-2-
CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022
JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LXXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-72) IN CRL.A.NO.235/2017 REMANDING THE MATTER
FOR FRESH TRIAL AND JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN
C.C.NO.10493/2009 DATED 10.02.2017 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 323, 506 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed by LXXI Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72) in
Crl.A.No.235/2017 insofar as it relates to directing the Trial
Court to re-conduct the trial and dispose off the matter.
2. The petitioner was accused No.1 in
CC.No.10493/2009 and was tried for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The Trial Court
after considering the oral and documentary evidence convicted
the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The petitioner filed an appeal before
CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022
the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after considering the
material on record noticed that the trial Court had marked
wrong exhibits and relying upon such exhibits, had disposed off
the case. The Sessions Court while disposing off the appeal
observed that "considering this aspect and the arguments
adduced by the parties and on the observations made, it is a fit
case to remand the trial Court for consideration and to dispose
off the case in accordance with law by giving opportunity to
both the parties and to make the correction of the document
which are marked during the evidence and in the judgment
which do no tally with one another." After holding so,
shockingly, the Sessions Court held at one breath that the
appeal is liable to be dismissed but in the operative portion held
that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the case was
remitted back to the Trial Court. However, Sessions Court
directed the Trial Court to re-conduct the trial and dispose off
the matter. It is this portion of the order of the Appellate Court
that the petitioner is aggrieved of.
CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
mistake was in marking the exhibits and the trial in the case
was already completed and therefore there is no question of
conducting a re-trial.
4. The learned HCGP on the other hand contended
that the exhibits were wrongly marked and therefore, it was
necessary that the trial was re-conducted in the case.
5. I have considered the submission made by the
petitioner and the respondent.
6. It is seen from the order passed by the Appellate
Court that the learned Public Prosecutor has filed a memo to
the following effect:
"F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå 2 £ÉÃ
J¹JªÀiïJªÀiï £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. PÀ®A 498J,
323, 506 r/w 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ²PÉë«¢¹zÀÝ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ C¦Ã®Ä ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀĪÀÅ wÃ¥ÀÄð
¤ÃqÀĪÁUÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ¥ÀgÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁzÀ
CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022
zÁR8ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ zÁR8ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ
¤±Á£É 1 zÀÆgÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 2 ªÀĺÀdgï, ¤±Á£É 3 ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ
¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 4 ®UÀß ¥ÀwæPÉ, ¤±Á£É 5 jAzÀ 7 ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 8 ºÉýPÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DzÀgÉ, ¥Áæ.¸Á.1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ¤±Á£É 1 zÀÆgÀÄ, ¤±Á£É
2 ªÀĺÀdgï, ¤±Á£É 3 DªÀÄAvÀæt ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 4 ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 5 «PÉÆÖÃjAiÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ UÁAiÀÄzÀ
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 6 dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ UÁAiÀÄzÀ
¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8 ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 9
ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 10 ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ
DzÉñÀ, ¤±Á£É 11 DzÉñÀ gÉÆÃeï £ÁªÉÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ
16.10.2000 JAzÀÄ ¥Áæ.¸Á.1 gÀªÀjAzÀ ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV
UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÉà jÃw ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¥À.ªÀ.ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¤±Á£É 9 (C.W.10 P.W.11) gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (C.W.12 P.W.12) «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr
CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É 11 JAzÀÄ
UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤±Á£É 9 ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrzÀ
zÀÆgÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ eÉgÁPÀì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÉßÃ
UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÉÆvÉUÉ ¤±Á£É ¦ 11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 11 ¸ÀºÀ
eÉgÁPÀì ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉ
¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
7. Therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in
allowing the appeal and remitting back the case to the Trial
Court. However, the Appellate Court have ought not to have
directed the trial Court to re-conduct a trial and dispose off the
case.
CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022
In view of the matter, the impugned judgment passed by
the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.235/2017 is modified and the
Trial Court is directed to re-mark the exhibits as per the
evidence adduced before it and thereafter dispose off the case
in accordance with law as against the petitioner herein. The
petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on 23.01.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
