Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.N.Mahesha vs State By Sakaleshapura on 15 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
CRL.RP No. 841 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 841 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI.M.N.MAHESHA
S/O. N.L MALLESHA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NATTALLI VILLAGE,
HANUBALU HOBLI,
SAKALESHAPUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S MALLIKARJUNAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY SAKALESHAPURA
RURAL POICE,
Digitally signed by
SAKALESHAPURA-573 134.
HARIKRISHNA V SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. SOWMYA.R, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 08.08.2012 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SAKALESHAPURA IN C.C.NO.261/2009 AND JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED V
ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.115/2012 DATED 05.05.2016.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
CRL.RP No. 841 of 2016
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the legality and validity of the judgment dated 05.05.2016 in
Criminal Appeal No.115/2012 by the V Additional District and
Sessions Court, Hassan, wherein the learned Session Judge
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 374
of Cr.P.C. and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction
passed against the petitioner, by the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Shakaleshpur in C.C.261/2009 dated 08.08.2012 for the
offences punishable under Sections 448, 506, 427 and 323 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of
this revision petition are as follows:
On 10.03.2009 at about 7 a.m. in the morning, the
petitioner/accused who had previous enmity due to the
partition that had taken place in their family, had trespassed
into the house of C.W.1 by holding a chopper and had picked
up a quarrel with her by showing the chopper and had
threatened her life by stating that he will kill her one day. He
had committed the mischief by causing damage to the window
glasses by chopper and had pushed C.W.1 to the floor. Due to
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
the said Act, C.W.1 has fallen on the floor and sustained
injuries on her left thumb and chest. Subsequently, she was
admitted to the hospital and she had lodged complaint before
the respondent-police i.e, Shakaleshpura Rural Police Station as
per Ex.P1.
3. Based on the said complaint lodged by C.W.1, the
respondent-police registered the case against the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506 and 323
of IPC in Crime No.36/2009 dated 10.03.2009. Thereafter,
PW.11 has conducted the investigation and laid the charge
sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences
before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshapura.
Subsequently, the trial Court has framed the charges against
the accused for the said offences. The accused denied the same
and claims to be tried.
4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
petitioner/accused before the trial Court, the prosecution has
examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 so also got marked
9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and got identified two material
objects as MO.1 and MO.2. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, incriminating evidence read over to the accused as
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
contemplated under the provision of 313 of Cr.P.C., which
denied by the accused. The trial Court after hearing both the
counsel, has passed the judgment by convicting the accused for
the offences charged against him and thereby sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for
the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC. Further, the
accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months for the offence punishable under Section
506 of IPC. So also, he is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence
punishable under Section 427 of IPC and the accused is
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
Further, it is directed by the trial Court that all the sentences
shall run concurrently.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner/accused preferred criminal appeal before the V
Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Appellate Court' for short) in Criminal Appeal
No.115/2012. The Appellate Court after considering the
evidence on record so also hearing the learned counsel for the
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
parties, has passed the judgment by dismissing the appeal filed
by the petitioner and thereby confirmed the conviction order
passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has filed this revision petition to set aside the order
passed by the trial Court so also the impugned judgment
passed by the Appellate Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
so also the learned HCGP for the respondent-state.
7. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that both the Courts below erred by
convicting the accused for the charges leveled against him.
Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence in a
proper prospective and also failed to consider that there is a
civil dispute pending between the petitioner-accused and PW.1
and PW.2, who are none other than the mother and brother of
the petitioner respectively. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the complainant-PW.1 has lodged this false
complaint after the petitioner-accused issuing the legal notice
for partition of ancestral properties. He also placed a copy of
the order dated 14.11.2022 in FDP.No.2/2014 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Sakaleshpura so also a copy of the
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed in RFA.No.1436/2013 by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, he submits
that in order to give a criminal colour to the civil disputes, the
complainant has falsely lodged the said complaint against the
petitioner. By enunciating his contentions, he submits that
there are major discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 and
PW.2. Further the material witnesses for the recovery
mahazar, are totally turned hostile to the prosecution case.
Accordingly, he prays for allowing the revision petition by
setting aside the judgment passed by the Appellate Court so
also the trial Court.
8. Refuting the above submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP would contend that
both the trial Court so also the Appellate Court have rightly
passed the judgments by convicting the accused for the
charges leveled against him. The trial Court convicted the
accused after meticulously examining the evidence available on
record. As such, the well reasoned judgment passed by the
trial Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Court does not
call for any interference by this Court. Learned HCGP also
contends that both PW.1 and PW.2 have categorically deposed
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
about the act committed by the accused by tresspassing into
the house of P.W.1 and also assault made by the accused.
According to the learned HCGP though the recovery mahazar
witnesses have turned hostile, there is no reason to discard the
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss
the revision petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and having given my anxious consideration on the trial
Court records including the impugned judgment passed by the
trial Court so also the Appellate Court the only point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the judgments under this
revision petition, are suffers from any
perversity and call for any interference?"
10. On careful perusal of the evidence placed before
this Court, in order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined
11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 among them PW.1 is an injured
witness, who lodged the complaint, is none other than the
mother of the accused. According to her, on the date of
incident, the accused illegally tresspassed into her house and
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
damaged window glasses and also caused injuries on her chest.
Thereafter, she was taken to hospital for treatment and
subsequently, she lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1.
11. The said evidence of P.W.1 is supported by P.W.2,
who is none other than the brother of the petitioner-accused.
P.W.2 also stated that on the date of incident, the accused
illegally trespassed into their house and caused injuries on the
person of PW.1 so also damaged the window glasses by holding
a chopper.
12. P.W.3, is the sister-in-law of the accused petitioner
also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, is the father
of the petitioner-accused and husband of P.W.1-complainant,
who partly supported the case of the prosecution. However,
during the course of cross examination he had admitted about
the existence of civil disputes. PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7 are the
seizure mahazar witnesses have turned hostile to the
prosecution case. P.W.8 is the PDO of Village Panchayath, who
had issued the extract as per Ex.P.5 pertaining to the house of
PW.1. PW.9 is the constable who had registered the FIR based
on the complaint lodged by PW.1 as per Ex.P7. PW.10 is the
doctor, who examined the complainant-PW.1 and issued the
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
wound certificate as per Ex.P9. PW.11 is the ASI, who
completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before
the trial Court.
13. On careful perusal of the above evidence, PW.1 and
PW.2 being the mother and brother of the petitioner-accused
respectively have categorically deposed that on the date of
incident the accused had trespassed into their house by holding
a chopper on his hand and thereby threatened PW.1 and PW.2
with dare consequence so also damaged the window glasses
and assaulted PW.1 and caused injuries on her person.
Further, on perusal of Ex.P9 i.e. the wound certificate, the
same depicts PW.1 had sustained injuries on her person and
she had taken treatment in the hospital and the same has
deposed by PW.10-the Doctor before the Court.
14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contends that there are much contradictions in the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on careful scrutiny of the same, in
my view, the same does not go to the root of the prosecution
case. As such, the minor contradiction cannot be considered to
discard the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.1 and
PW.2 supported by the evidence of PW.11-the investigating
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
officer. As stated supra, the medical evidence also collaborates
to the testimony of PW.1, in my considered view, the trial Court
has rightly passed the judgment by convicting the accused
which was upheld by the Appellate Court.
15. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
alternatively contends that this incident was caused in the year
2009 and ever since then, the accused is on bail so also
considering the fact that civil disputes were pending between
the accused and PW.1 and PW.2, which attained finality by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA.No.1436/2013. As such,
a lenient view may be taken in respect of imposing the
sentence to the accused in this case.
16. Having gone through the materials available on
record, primarily, the incident of the year 2009 and the
petitioner has been on bail through out these years, and also
considering the relationship between the parties i.e., the
complainant-PW.1 and PW.2 are none other than the mother
and brother of the accused respectively and there was a civil
dispute between them. Further there are no criminal
antecedents of the petitioner that have been brought on record.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
17. Considering all these mitigating circumstances in
the interest of justice, in my considered view the sentence
imposed by the trial Court may be modified by imposing
suitable fine amount instead of imposing imprisonment to the
petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the conviction order passed by
the trial Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Court is
hereby modified. The accused is directed to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC
instead of sentence of three months imposed by the trial Court.
The accused is also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC instead of
sentence of three months imposed by the trial Court. Further
the accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC instead of six
months imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. So also the
accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 506 of IPC instead of six months
imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. The total fine amount
shall be deposited by the accused within a period of five weeks
from today before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shakaleshpur. On
receipt of such deposit, the learned JMFC is requested to be
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15002
made known to the same to PW.1 through the concerned police
and the entire fine amount shall be paid to PW.1 on proper
identification.
Accordingly, the revision petition allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY
