Sri. Srinivasa vs The State By Hosakote Police ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4594 Kant

                              -1-
                                    CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
                        BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 163 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA
SON OF LATE. SHIVARAM
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT KELAGINAPETE
HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 114.
                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A V RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:
THE STATE BY HOSAKOTE
POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 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 DATED 02-01-
2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU      RURAL     DISTRICT,   BENGALURU     IN
CRL.A.NO.45/2015 PERTAINS TO CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
OF TRIAL COURT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 353 AND 427 OF IPC AND ALSO JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02-07-2015 AND 03-07-
2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSAKOTE IN C.C.NO.1079/2013 AND ETC.,

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.07.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                       -2-
                                              CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016


                                    ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 02.07.2015 in C.C.No.1079/2013 on

the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at

Hosakote, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 and 427 of

Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and judgment and order

dated 02.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.45/2015 on the file of the Court

of Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

Bengaluru, wherein the Appellate Court confirmed the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of the

offences punishable under Sections 353 and 427 of IPC and set

aside the order in respect the offences punishable under

Sections 504 and 506 of 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 that, on

18.09.2013 at about 5.15 p.m., at Town Municipal Office,

Hoskote, the petitioner being the member of Town Municipal

Council (for short "TMC") abused PW.1 in filthy language and

CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

damaged the table glass. Further, he has entered into the

chamber of Chief Officer of the said Municipality and asked the

reason for changing the katha of Kalikamba Temple and

insisted the Chief Officer to give endorsement. A complaint

came to be lodged by PW.1 in that regard and a case came to

be registered in Crime No.405/2013 for the offences punishable

under Sections 427, 504, 506 and 353 of IPC. After conducting

investigation, a charge sheet was laid by the jurisdictional

police for the above said offences.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the

prosecution examined, in all, 12 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 12

and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8 and also identified material

object M.O.1. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for

the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 and 427

of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred

an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court

allowed the appeal in part and set aside judgment of conviction

in respect of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC

and maintained the conviction for the offences under Sections

353 and 427 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

5. Heard Shri A.V.Ramakrishna, 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 learned counsel for the

petitioner that, the conviction recorded by the Courts below are

opposed to the facts and law and hence, the said concurrent

findings require to be set aside.

7. The evidence of PWs.1 and 5 indicates that, the

petitioner being the member of TMC, enquired about the

changing of katha. Mere asking the Government official some

enquiry cannot be construed as the work of the official was

obstructed.

8. It is further submitted that, even though there is

allegation made out against the petitioner that, he had broken

the table glass of PW.1, none of the official witnesses who were

present at the time of the alleged incident, they have not

supported the case of the prosecution. Even though the

prosecution cited PWs.9 and 10 are the independent

eyewitnesses to the incident, on careful reading of the evidence

of these witnesses, they cannot be considered as eyewitnesses

to the incident.

CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

9. It is further submitted that, the Courts below failed

to appreciate the evidence appropriately and convicted the

petitioner which is erroneous and illegal. Learned counsel for

the petitioner prays this Court to interfere by exercising the

Revisional jurisdiction.

10. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader (for short 'HCGP') for the respondent-State vehemently

justified the conviction recorded by the Courts below for the

above said offences and submits that the evidence of PWs.1

and 5 and also the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 are cogent, clear

and acceptable. The evidence of independent witnesses and

eyewitnesses has to be accepted and there are no grounds to

disbelieve their evidence. The Courts below rightly assessed

the evidence of these witnesses and conviction was recorded

for the above said offences, which is appropriate and

sustainable. Interference with the well reasoned order of the

Courts below in convicting the petitioner may not be warranted

in this case. Having submitted thus, the learned HCGP prays to

dismiss the petition.

11. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the

CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

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 offence under Sections 353 and 427 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?

12. 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.

13. In order to avoid the repetition of the facts of the

case, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence

of the witnesses.

14. PW.1-H.K.Mohan was working as Revenue Officer,

he has stated that, the petitioner had entered into his chamber

CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

asking for the Katha pertaining to Kalikamba temple and

caused obstruction to the official work and damaged the table

glass. Similarly, PW.5-Ambika, who was working as Chief

Officer of TMC states that, on 18.09.2013 around about 5.15

p.m., petitioner entered into her chamber and forced her to

issue an endorsement in respect of the katha of the Kalikamba

temple having been issued in favour of individual name.

15. The other witnesses who stated to be the

employees of said TMC, namely, PWs.2, 3 and 4 have turned

hostile. PW.8 stated to be the eyewitness, turned hostile.

However, PW.9 supported the case of the prosecution. PW.10

who is also independent witness, supported the case of the

prosecution.

16. It is to be noted here that, except PW.1 and PW.5,

the evidence of other witnesses namely PWs.9 and 10 appears

to be concocted and fabricated. Though PWs.9 and 10 stated

to be present as on the date of the alleged incident, no

documents were produced by the prosecution to show that both

were present for the particular reason and happened to see the

incident as chance witnesses. Therefore, the Trial Court should

have discarded their evidence.

CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

17. As regards the evidence of PWs.1 and 5, both were

working as officials and they have not stated the official timings

of the office of which they were working. Admittedly, there was

a dispute between PWs.1 and 5 and the petitioner regarding

change of katha in respect of Kalikamba temple. The absence

of independent witness for having seen the breaking of the

table glass, it cannot be said that, the evidence of PWs.1 and 5

inspires the confidence of the Court to accept that the

petitioner had broken the table glass. Similarly, mere asking

for katha details in respect of Kalikamba temple, being a

member of the Municipal Council, cannot be construed as the

petitioner obstructed the official work of the PWs.1 and 5.

Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the Courts below

failed to appreciate the evidence both examination-in-chief and

cross-examination properly and convicted the petitioner, which

is held to be illegal and erroneous. The judgment of conviction

requires to be set aside.

18. 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"

                                         CRL.RP No. 163 of 2016

19. 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 02.07.2015 in C.C.No.1079/2013

on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil

Judge and J.M.F.C., at Hosakote and judgment

and order dated 02.01.2016 in

Crl.A.No.45/2015 on the file of the Court of

Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru, confirming the judgment of

conviction of the Trial Court insofar as convicting

the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Section 353 and 427 of IPC, are set aside.

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 427 of IPC.

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE

UN, BSS