Sri Chinnappaiah vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6584 Kant

                               -1-
                                       CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                              BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 329 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHINNAPPAIAH
   S/O LATE BUDDAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

2.   SRI SURESH
     S/O CHINNAPPAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

3.   SRI NARESH
     S/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
     BAYYAPALLI VILLAGE
     RONUR HOBLI
     SRINIVASAPURA TALUK - 563 135.
                                                ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G M SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE)


AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SRINIVASAPURA POLICE
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 01.6
                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)

      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE BOTH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESIONS
JUDGE AT KOLAR IN CRL.A.NO.25/2019 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER 14.02.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C, SRINIVASAPURA IN C.C.NO.151/2015 AND ETC.,

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 21.07.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                    -2-
                                               CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020



                               ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 14.02.2019 in C.C.No.151/2015 on

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

Srinivasapura and its confirmation judgment and order dated

09.01.2020 in Crl.A.No.25/2019 on the file of the Court of the

Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, seeking to set

aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below,

wherein the petitioners / accused is convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code (for short 'IPC').

2. The petitioners are the accused before the Trial

Court and the appellant before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on

21.01.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., in the night, in front of the

house of the complainant, the accused Nos.1 to 3 formed a

group and picked up a quarrel with PW.1-Satish. It is further

stated that, accused No.1 abused PW.1 in filthy language, and

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

accused No.3 assaulted PW.1 with a club and caused injuries.

In the meantime, PW.2-Sarala W/o PW.1 rushed to pacify the

quarrel, accused No.2 slapped her on her cheeks and assaulted

her with their hands, and all three accused threatened PWs.1

and 2 that they would be killed. After the incident, a complaint

came to be lodged by PW.1. The police have registered a case

in Crime No.11/2015 for the offences under Sections 323, 324,

504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After conducting the investigation,

submitted the charge sheet.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the

prosecution examined, in all, 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and

marked 5 documents as Exhibits P1 to P5 and also identified

MO.1-stick. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused Nos.1

to 3 for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal

before the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court dismissed

the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have

preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the

concurrent findings.

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

5. Heard Shri G.M Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners, and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order

passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the

concurrent findings are perverse, illegal, and opposed to facts

and law.

7. It is further submitted that PWs.1 to 3 are the

interested witnesses and it is admitted in the cross-examination

that, both the petitioners and family of PW.1 were not in cordial

terms, and none of the independent witnesses have supported

the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court and the Appellate

Court should have considered the admission of PW.3 that they

are not on good terms.

8. In the absence of evidence of independent

witnesses, it cannot be construed that, the alleged incident had

taken place and the petitioners have assaulted PWs.1 and 2.

Even though, PWs.1 and 2 have produced medical certificates

which are marked as Exs.P4 and P5, the said injuries found in

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

those wound certificates are referred to as simple. The Doctor

who treated PWs.1 and 2 was examined as PW.6 and admitted

in her cross-examination that, there is also the possibility of

sustaining such injuries in another way. When the Doctor

admitted that the alleged injuries might have been caused in

another way i.e., other than this quarrel, a conviction based on

the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 appears to be erroneous, perverse,

and illegal, hence, the said conviction requires to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

(for short 'HCGP') justifying the concurrent findings and

submits that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the

eyewitnesses to the incident and medical certificates at Exs.P4

and P5 indicate that, the petitioners have assaulted PWs.1 and

2. All the witnesses consistently supported the case of the

prosecution and withstood the cross-examination. Nothing has

been elicited during the cross-examination except that there

was no cordial relationship between the petitioners and PWs.1

and 2. That may not be sufficient to disbelieve the version of

PWs.1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the concurrent findings recorded

by the Courts below are appropriate and there is error or

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

infirmity in the said findings. Having submitted thus, learned

HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the

concurrent findings 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 petitioners

for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 r/w

34 of IPC are sustainable?

ii) Whether the petitioners have made out

grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings

recorded by both the Courts below for conviction?

11. 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.

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

12. To avoid the repetition of the facts, it is relevant to

refer to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to ascertain, any error

committed by the Courts below in appreciating the evidence

and applying the law. PW.1 has stated that on the date of the

alleged incident at about 7.30 p.m., he and his wife were

quarreling with each other, by that time, the petitioners herein

misunderstood that PWs.1 and 2 were scolding them and

started quarreling with PWs.1 and 2 and assaulted them. The

overt act of each of the petitioners is elaborately stated and

supports the case of the prosecution.

13. It is further noticed in the evidence of PW.1 that, all

the petitioners have thrown the infant of PW.2 to the ground

and assaulted PW.2 indiscriminately, however, no such medical

certificate is produced in connection with the treatment having

been given to the child after the incident.

14. PW.2 in her evidence has stated that, accused No.3

threw her 10 days infant to the ground and accused No.2

assaulted her. PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution.

Similarly, PW.3 who is the mother of PW.1 also supported the

case of the prosecution. All these witnesses are consistent in

their evidence that PWs.1 and 2 have been assaulted, and their

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

child was thrown to the ground by accused No.3. However,

there is no whisper regarding treatment having been given to

the child. If the child was thrown to the ground, certainly, the

child would have sustained injuries. In the absence of

treatment for the child, it cannot be construed that, the quarrel

had taken place between the petitioners and P.W.1 and 2. The

Doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2 did not state any treatment

given to the infant. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has

failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that the

petitioners have assaulted PWs 1 and 2. However, the Trial

Court and the Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact

that, the child also sustained the injury in the said incident,

however, no treatment was given to the child. Whereas, PWs 1

and 2 have gone to the hospital for treatment appears to be

highly unbelievable and illogical. Therefore, the findings of the

Courts below in recording the conviction appear to be perverse,

and illegal and the same is required to be set aside.

15. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of

inimical witness has to be considered with caution and diligent.

When the evidence of inimical eyewitnesses were not

corroborated by other independent witnesses, conviction cannot

be recorded. In the instant case, on reading of the evidence of

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

PWs.1 to 3, it appears that PWs.1 to 3 and the petitioners are

not in good terms. There are contradictions and descripancies

in the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses. It is needless

to say that none of the independent witnesses have supported

the case of the prosecution. Despite of several discrepancies in

the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the Trial Court recorded the

conviction, which appears to be erroneous and the same is

liable to be set aside.

16. In the light of the observations made above, the

points that arose for my consideration are answered as under:-

      Point No.(i)        - "Negative"

      Point No.(ii)       - "Affirmative"

17. 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       14.02.2019     passed      in

C.C.No.151/2015 by the Court of the Principal

Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Srinivasapura and the

judgment and order dated 09.01.2020 passed in

- 10 -

CRL.RP No. 329 of 2020

Crl.A.No.25/2019 by the Court of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, are set

aside.

(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences

under Sections 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

Sd/-

JUDGE

UN