Karnataka High Court
Mr Hasainar K vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1193 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. MR HASAINAR K
S/O MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT RSR GROUND, PERLA,
ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, PERLA POST
KASARAGOD TALUK
KASARAGOD - 574 251
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. KETHAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I. VITTLA POLICE STATION
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P,
Digitally signed by D
HEMA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA BENGALLURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.253/2015
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2015 PASSED BY
THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BUNTWAL,
DAKSHINA KANNADA IN C.C.NO.1078/2012.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent - State.
2. This revision petition is filed by the accused
challenging the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.253/2015 by
the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru
(hereinafter for short referred as 'appellate Court') dated
21.08.2017 confirming the judgment passed in
C.C.No.1078/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada (for short
'trial Court') dated 28.10.2015 convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 341, 332, 353 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are
that on 08.04.2012 at about 6.40 p.m. at Vitla village of
Bantwal Taluk on Vitla - Puttur public road, the complainant
being the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA.19/F-2417
was driving the said bus towards Kasargodu. The said bus
stopped at the spot of incident to facilitate passengers to
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
board the bus. When bus started, at that time, the accused
came from the opposite direction along with a lady and child
tapped the glass of the bus vigorously with his hands. PW-1
questioned the accused as to why he was so vigorously
tapping the glass? It might break. The accused boarded the
bus and assaulted the complainant and caused hurt to him.
Due to the acts of the accused, it deterred the complainant
to discharge his official duty as driver of the KSRTC bus.
PW1 sustained injury and he took treatment for the same.
He lodged a complaint to Vitla Police Station, that was
registered in Cr.No.63/2012 for the offence punishable under
Section 341, 332, 353 of IPC.
4. The investigating officer had investigated the case
and on completion of investigation submitted the charge
sheet before the trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 341, 332, 353 of IPC.
5. The trial Court took cognizance of the case and
secured the presence of the accused. After hearing both the
side, the trial Court had framed charges for the offence
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
punishable under Section 341, 332, 353 of IPC. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution
to prove its case examined PW-1 to 11 and got marked
documents at Exs.P1 to P5 and closed its evidence.
6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C by the trial Court. The accused did not offer defense
evidence while called upon. The trial Court after hearing
both the parties and on appreciating the evidence available
on record, by its judgment dated 28.10.2015, convicted the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 341, 332,
353 of IPC. The trial Court sentenced the accused as under:
To undergo imprisonment for a period of one
month and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 341 of IPC
Sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC.
Sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a
period of one year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC.
If the accused failed to pay the fine as above, he
has to undergo imprisonment for a period of two
months.
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
accused preferred an appeal before I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in
Crl.A.No.253/2015. The appellate Court after re-
appreciating the evidence available on record, concurred with
the findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeal by the
impugned judgment dated 21.08.2017. The same is
challenged in the present revision petition.
8. No arguments were advanced on behalf of
revision petitioner. I have heard the arguments of learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
9. Following questions arises for determination:
"Whether the Court below is justified in convicting
the accused for the above offences? and findings of
appellate court is erroneous and illegal and
interference by this Court is required?
10. In this case, PW-1 is the victim of the incident.
In his evidence, he had stated that he was driver of the bus
bearing No.KA.19/F-2417 on the date of the incident dated
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
08.04.2012 belonging to KSRTC. PW1 had also narrated
about the incident and further stated that on that day
accused assaulted him due which he had sustained injury.
By the said illegal act accused deterred him from driving the
bus. In the meanwhile passengers of the bus rescued him
from the accused. Thereafter, the accused and his wife and
small children alighted from the bus and left the spot. He
lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. He also identified
accused before the Court. In his cross-examination, he has
reiterated the said evidence stated in the examination-in-
chief and elaborated the same. Nothing was brought out in
the cross-examination to discard his evidence. It was the
suggestion of the accused that since the accused tried to
board in the private bus, therefore, he became angry and
filed a false complaint against him. He was driver of the bus
belonging to KSRTC and Government servant. Why he would
bother if accused intend to go in private bus? Hence said
suggestion was not probable.
11. PW-2 is the conductor of the bus. He has
corroborated the evidence of PW1. He has also stated that
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
accused assaulted on PW1 and deterred him from driving the
bus. In his cross-examination also he has elaborated the
said evidence. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the
evidence. Merely he was conductor of the bus cannot be
ground to disbelieve his evidence. PW4 is the eye witness to
the incident. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW1.
12. PW-4 is an eye witness, who was standing near
front door of the bus. He had also narrated the facts of the
case and corroborated evidence of PW1 and 2. He appears
to be known person of accused. In his cross-examination
also nothing was brought out to disbelieve his evidence.
13. PW8 is the Medical officer, who has also treated
PW1 on 08.04.2012 at 6.45 p.m. He has stated about the
injuries sustained by PW1 and issued the Medical certificate
as per Ex.P5. Injuries sustained by PW1 was not seriously
disputed. PW-6 is the Manager of KSRTC- Puttur depot. He
has furnished Ex.P4 stating that on the date of the incident,
PW1 was the driver of the bus bearing No.KA.19/F.2417 and
PW-2 was the conductor of the said bus. The said facts were
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
not disputed. It was not seriously disputed that PW1 and 2
were government servants.
14. PW-3 was said to be an eye witness has turned
hostile. Even he denied that he was traveling in the said
bus. His evidence will not damage the case of the case of the
prosecution. PW-5 and 7 are not material witness in this
case.
15. The matter was investigated by PW-10, who has
narrated the manner in which he had investigated the case.
PW-9 and 11 are official witnesses, they are also not material
witnesses. The trial Court appreciated the said evidence
convicted the petitioner of the alleged offences.
16. In the impugned judgment, the appellate Court
has re-considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses in
detail and concurred with the findings of the trial Court.
There are no reasons to interfere in the findings of the
Courts below. The Court below had followed the proper
procedure while deciding the matter.
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
17. The accused is convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 341, 332, 353 of IPC. Looking to
the allegations in Ex.P1 or in the evidence of PW1 and 2 no
case was made out to punish the accused under Section 341
of IPC. Hence, conviction and sentence of accused for the
offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC needs to be set
aside. According to his evidence, he was prevented from
driving the bus because of the act of the accused. Therefore,
conviction of the accused by the trial Court as well as
appellate Court under Section 341 of IPC is not tenable.
18. The court below convicted the accused of offence
punishable under Section 353 and 33 of IPC. Both the
Section deals with deterring of public servant to discharge
his duties. In committing said crime, if accused causes hurt
to Government servant, then Section 332 of IPC would
attract. In this case, while deterring public servant accused
caused hurt to PW1. Therefore, it is suffice to convict the
accused under Section 332 of IPC instead of convicting and
sentencing for both offences. To that incident the impugned
judgment needs to be modified.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
19. The other grounds made out in the revision
petition are not tenable.
20. For the above said discussions, the question
raised above is answered in the negative and I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment convicting the
accused of the offence punishable under Section
332 of IPC and sentence imposed there on is
confirmed.
iii. Conviction of accused of the offence
punishable under Section 341 of IPC and
sentence imposed thereon is set aside. He is
acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 341 of IPC.
iv. Forty five (45) days time is granted to the
revision petitioner to surrender before the trial
Court to undergo sentence.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15548
v. The bail bond executed by the
accused/revision petitioner stands cancelled.
vi. Registry is directed to send back the trial
Court records forthwith along with copy of the
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
