Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka By vs B Rajeeva (A-1) on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
CRL.RP No. 1306 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Digitally
signed by THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SANDHYA S
Location: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
High Court of
Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 01.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)
AND:
1. B RAJEEVA (A-1),
S/O BOOBA KOTTARY,
AGED 46 YEARS,
R/AT NADUMANE ADKERE,
KONAJE,
MANGALURU - 574 199.
2. GEETHA (A-3),
D/O BOOBA KOTTARY,
AGED 34 YEARS,
BEEDI ROLLER,
R/AT NADUMANE ADKERE,
KONAJE,
MANGALURU - 574 199.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, FOR
SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY .K., ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
CRL.RP No. 1306 of 2015
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
31.03.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.91/2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J.,
D.K., MANGALURU AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE
APPELLATE COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this revision petition against the
common judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed in Criminal
Appeal Nos.91/2014 by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for
short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
revision petition are referred to with their status and rank
before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to this revision petition are that:
On 07.05.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., complainant and
other two persons were doing coolie work in the land of one
Smt. Jessy D'Souza. At that time, the respondent/accused
along with accused No.2 came to the spot having formed a
common intention, picked up quarrel and assaulted the
complainant and his brother PW.2 by hands, A2 assaulted
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
with sickle thereby causing hurt and grievous injury. It is
further alleged that the accused also abused the complainant
and his brothers. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged
against these respondents/accused along with another person
arraigned as accused No.2 before the jurisdictional police
station. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant i.e. Sri. Shankar Kottary, Konaje Police have
registered the case in Crime No.23/2000 against three
accused namely, Sugandi, Geetha and Rajeev for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 323,325 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the
investigating officer has submitted a charge sheet against
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable
under Section 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code. Thereafter, the case was registered in CC.No.94/2000
on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru.
The Trial Court has framed charges against accused Nos.1 to
3 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
324, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the
substance of accusation was recorded. Accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
4. To prove the case of prosecution, six witnesses
were examined as PWs.1 to 6, six documents were got
marked as Exs.P1 to P6 and one material object was got
marked as M.O.1. On closure of evidence of prosecution
evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Civil
Procedure was recorded. Accused has denied totally the
evidence on behalf of execution. On hearing the arguments
on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1
and 3 and convicted accused No.2 for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default
she shall undergo S.I. for a period of 2 years 6 months.
Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by accused No.2, the State has preferred the
appeal before the Prl. Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru in
Crl.A.Nos.91/2014 and 92/2014. Accused No.2 has also
preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.282/2009. All these appeals
were clubbed together and common judgment was passed by
the learned Sessions Judge dismissing all the appeals. Being
aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, the
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
State has preferred the appeal against the judgment passed
in Crl.A.No.91/2014. But the State has not preferred any
revision against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.92/2014 and
accused No.2 has also not preferred any revision against the
judgment passed in Crl.A.No.282/2009.
5. Sri Rajat Subramanyam, learned High Court
Government Pleader has vehemently submitted that the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is
illegal, invalid and contrary to law and probabilities of the
case. The Trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating
the evidence and materials on record in its proper perspective
while acquitting the respondents/accused which has resulted
in miscarriage of justice. The appellate Court while dismissing
the appeal has come to a wrong conclusion that the version of
PWs.1 and 2 that the accused have assaulted them with
hands, except saying so, they have not stated anything to
attract Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
and conclusion arrived at by both the courts by acquitting the
accused that no error is committed is erroneous and both the
Courts below have come to wrong conclusion on a wrong
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has proved the
case through evidence of PWs.1 to 4 among them PWs.1 and
2 are the injured witnesses, Pws.3 and 4 are the eyewitness
and the same has been corroborated by PW.5 who is the
Medical Officer who has treated the injured immediately after
the incident and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. The
prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that the above
said accused respondents came along with accused No.2
abused the complainant and his brother and assaulted them
with by their hands and they had formed an common
intention. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the
revision petition.
6. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri Ashok Kumar Shetty K for respondents,
submitted that both the Courts have properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and that
there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments passed
by the Courts below. Accordingly, she sought to dismiss the
revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of entire records, the following points would arise for
my consideration:
i. Whether the judgment of the Trial Court
which is confirmed by the Appellate Court
is illegal and improper and the same needs
interference by this Court?
ii. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the negative
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding point No.1:
9. I have carefully examined the material placed
before the Court.
To prove the case of prosecution in all six witnesses were
examined as PWs.1 to 6 and six documents were got marked
as Exs.P1 to P6 and one material object was got marked as
M.O.1. PWs.1 and 2 are the injured and PWs.3 and 4 are the
eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.4 has not supported the
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
case of prosecution. PW.5 is the doctor who treated the
injured. PW.6 is the investigating officer in the matter. Ex.P1
is the complaint in which it has stated that on 07.05.2000 at
about 8.30 a.m., when the complainant and his elder brother
Vishwanath Kottary and Jessy D.Souza were doing work in
their house. The accused Rajeeva instructed them to stop the
work as the site belongs to them. Then the galata took place
between them. Then Sugandi who is accused No.2 and also
the sister of accused No.1 Rajeeva came and assaulted the
elder brother of the complainant with sword. Again, when
she tried to assault his elder brother, then the complainant
prevented from making assault on his brother. As a result of
which, the complainant received injuries on his right hand
near elbow and accused have also assaulted the complainant
and his brother with their hands. Thereafter, one Isubu came
to the spot and then accused went along with his sisters to
home and the complainant and his elder brother took
treatment in hospital and filed complaint against the accused
for commission of alleged offences. Both the Courts have
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance
with law and facts. On careful examination of entire evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:13536
on record, I do not find any illegality/infirmity in the
impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below.
Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding point No.2:
10. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
ii. Registry is directed to send copy of this
order along with records to the concerned
Courts.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
