Karnataka High Court
Ramanna S/O Tirkappa Yerimani vs State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2017
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100188 OF 2017 (397-)
BETWEEN:
RAMANNA S/O. TIRKAPPA YERIMANI,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HURALIKUPPI, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD
THROUGH SAVANUR POLICE STATION
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, HCGP)
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CODE OF
KARNATAKA
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO C.C.NO.04/2013 FROM THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C. COURT SAVANUR, AND CRL.A.NO. 25/2015 FROM THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT
HAVERI AND TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS, LEGALITY AND
PROPRIETY OF FINDING AND IN PASSING JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT SAVANUR, DATED 18-02-2015
IN C.C.NO.04/2013 AND ALSO SETTING ASIDE THE AND SESSIONS
JUDGE HEVERI, IN CRL.A.NO.25/2015 DATED 22.06.2017.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
CRL.RP No. 100188 of 2017
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
11.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition
challenging the judgment of his conviction and order of
sentence passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.25/2015 and
52/2015 dated 22.06.2017 by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short the 'First Appellate
Court'), finding him guilty of committing the offences
under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354 and 427 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') by confirming the
judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed in
C.C. No.4/2013 dated 18.02.2015 by the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Savanur (for short the 'Trial Court').
Brief and relevant facts leading up to this revision
petition are as under:
2. That, accused Nos.1 to 8 so arrayed as accused
in the aforesaid C.C.No.4/2013 were charge sheeted by
the Police Inspector, Savanur Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
324, 341, 354, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of
IPC. Amongst accused Nos.1 to 8, accused No.7 was the
Juvenile offender who was charge sheeted before the
Juvenile Justice Board.
2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that, one
Nagaraj Manjappa Jambur resident of the address so
stated in the complaint submitted a complaint at 4.30 p.m.
on 17.05.2012 by appearing before the Police Inspector,
Savanur Police Station stating that, he is the resident of
Hosamugalgeri village in Shikaripura Taluk. On 17.05.2012
himself and his family members were travelling towards
Huralikuppi village to leave his brother's wife Roopa for the
purpose of delivery. All were travelling in Maruti Omni car
bearing registration No.KA-15/M-4319. In the said car
himself, his brother's wife Roopa, his sister Lata W/o.
Siddhalingappa Lakkannavar initially came to Hangal.
From Hangal they picked his another sister Nagaratna @
Ratna W/o. Parshuram Kulumiyellaour resident of Mantagi,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
Taluk Hangal and her husband Parshuram. They all came
to Huralikuppi village.
2.2. It is alleged that on 17.05.2012 at 8.00 a.m.
one Mr. Ramanna resident of Huralikuppi village i.e.,
accused No.1 came to complainant's sister-in-law's house
and asked them stating that, why they have got married a
daughter from the baster's house and abused them as
'basters' and went away. When complainant and his
family members enquired with the family members of
Roopa stating that why he abused and went away, it was
told to them that, the said accused No.1 was having illicit
relationship with one Renuka a relative of the said Roopa
and as she is not in the village, therefore he was under the
impression that the said Renuka is with the family of the
complainant therefore, accused No.1 came and abused in
filthy language.
2.3. It is further alleged that, at 1.30 p.m.
complainant and his sisters and husband of his sister were
returning to their village in Maruti Omni car. After
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
crossing Huralikuppi village, one Manjunath Ramanna
Yerimani and another Udachappa Ganeshappa Kalakoti
resident of Huralikuppi came and stoped the said car. The
inmates of the car enquired that, why they have stopped
the car. Both of them peeped into the windows of the
vehicle and telephoned to somebody stating that, she is
not there. Thereafter, they asked them to go. When they
started moving towards their village, accused No.1
followed them on his motorcycle with pillion rider,
overtook the car and went ahead to the extent of 2 k.ms.
When the said car reached near Kurubaramallur plot, it
was noticed that, the said accused No.1 by putting across
the motorcycle on the road stopped the car. Along with
him there were four ladies and other persons and one
person was holding stones in his hands.
2.4. It is further alleged that, the car of the
complainant was stopped by the accused persons.
Accused No.1 and the ladies with him peeped into the
vehicle. At that time, the sisters of the complainant also
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
got down from the car and asked them that, even
exceeding the powers of the police they are checking the
vehicle. At that time, suddenly four ladies and accused
No.1 dragged the saree worn by Nagaratna-the sister of
the complainant so also caught hold her hairs, made her to
fall down and treaded her. So also caught hold the jacket
and dragged her. Abused her in filthy language stating
that, the said baster Renuka is with her and asked her
whereabouts. Because of this illegal acts of the accused,
the wedlock worn by Nagaratna was torn. Thereafter, all
of them came to the complainant and asked that, why
they have got married with the family of basters. By
saying so, accused No.1 by taking the stone from the
ground, assaulted on the complainant's head and even
damaged the driver seat's glass and caused loss. Even he
tried to assault Nagaratna - complainant's sister. At that
time, Parshuram tried to rescue her. To him also abused
in filthy language and by using stones fisted on his chest.
Complainant's another sister Lata was also pushed by
hands. All of them started bombarding. At that time, it
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
was told that, unless they disclose the whereabouts of
Renuka he will pour acid on them and kill them. By saying
so, he started assaulting. It was informed to the relations
of the complainant by phone. At that time, the peoples
from Huralikuppi and Kurubaramallur came and rescued
the complainant and companions from the clutches of the
accused. The said incident took place at 3.00 p.m.
Thereafter, on enquiry with the relations of the
complainant they told the names of all the accused
persons as the assailants. With these allegations a
complaint came to be filed and it is registered in Crime
No.76/2012 for the aforesaid offences and the criminal law
was set in motion.
3. The Investigating Officer on taking up the
investigation visited the scene of offence, conducted spot
panchanama as per Ex.P.4. On 18.05.2012 arrested
accused Nos.1 and 8 and produced them before the Court.
During the course of investigation, he seized Maruti Omni
car, motorbike used by accused No.1, recorded the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
statements of the witnesses and after collecting necessary
documents filed the charge sheet against all the accused
persons for the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned Trial Court conducted the trial. To
prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined
thirteen witnesses and got marked the documents at
Ex.P.1 to P.14 and also marked M.O. Nos.1 to 4. Closed
prosecution evidence.
5. The learned Trial Court, on hearing the
arguments and on perusal of the records found accused
Nos.1 to 6 and 8 guilty of committing the offences under
Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 354, 427, 504 and
506 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced all of
them as under:
"DzÉñÀ
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉV£À ¸ÁzÁ
¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.500-00 UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß zÀAqÀ
¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A 143
¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ
PÀ¤µÀÖ 15 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ JgÀqÄÀ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.1000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 147 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 1 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ JgÀqÄÀ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ,1000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 148 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 1 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.500-00 UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß
zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A
341 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ
PÀ¤µÀÖ 15 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.2000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 504 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 2 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ JgÀqÄÀ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.2000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 354 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 2 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.5000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 324 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 6 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉV£À ¸ÁzÁ
¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.500-00 UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß zÀAqÀ
¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A 323
¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ «¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1
jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ
PÀ¤µÀÖ 15 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.1000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 427 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 1 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉV£À
¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¯Á gÀÆ.2000-00
UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ
PÀ®A 506 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²Që¸À®àqÄÀ ªÀ PÀ®AUÉ
«¢ü¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1 jAzÀ 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
vÀÄA§ÄªÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁzÀgÉ PÀ¤µÀÖ 2 wAUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ PÁgÁUÀȺÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß
C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. "
6. This judgment of conviction and order of
sentence was challenged by all the accused persons by
preferring Criminal Appeal Nos.25/2015 and 52/2015
before the First Appellate Court. By passing the common
judgment, the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 22.06.2017 acquitted accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
against accused No.1 only. So far as acquittal of accused
Nos.2 to 6 and 8 is concerned, the State has not preferred
any appeal. Thus, the judgment of acquittal of accused
Nos.2 to 6 and 8 has attained finality.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
7. Now, accused No.1 being aggrieved by the
judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court, confirmed in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal
Nos.25/2015 and 52/2015 has preferred this revision
petition.
8. Learned counsel Shri. A. M. Gundawade,
appearing for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 with
force submits that, this accused No.1 is falsely implicated
by the complainant by filing a false complaint. It is his
submission that, all the witnesses so examined in this case
are the relatives and their interested evidence cannot be
accepted as a truthful evidence so as to connect this
accused No.1 in the commission of the crime. According
to his submission, there are material contradictions,
omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of the
prosecution. If that is so, he submits that, when no such
incident has taken place, then the question of accused
No.1 authoring the crime does not arise at all.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
8.1. Learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner pointed out certain contradictions, discrepancies
as well as the omissions in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. He submits that, both the Courts below have
committed grave error and illegality in passing the
impugned judgments. He submits that, on reading the
entire evidence a doubt arises with regard to the so called
incident narrated by the complainant. Therefore,
according to him as doubt arises in the case of prosecution
and that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the
accused No.1. He prays to allow the revision petition and
acquit the accused No.1.
9. As against this submission, Shri. Ashok
Kattimani, learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that, the evidence placed on record by the
prosecution clinchingly establish the presence of accused
No.1 in the commission of the crime. Complainant is an
eyewitness to the said incident. His evidence is
corroborated by the evidence of eyewitnesses. When there
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
was attempt of outraging the modesty of a women by this
accused No.1 by dragging her saree, assaulting her, by
making her to fall down, itself goes to established that the
accused No.1 is the author of the crime. Having grudge
with one Renuka, he has committed the offence against
the complainant's family on the ground that, why they
have taken the girl from baster's family. He further
submits that, the grounds so mentioned in the revision
petition are unsatisfactory grounds so as to believe the
false story of accused No.1 of his false implication.
9.1. Learned High Court Government Pleader took
this Court to the various evidence placed on record by the
prosecution. He prays to dismiss the revision petition of
accused No.1.
10. I have given my anxious and careful
consideration to the arguments of both the side. Perused
the records. In view of the rival submissions of both the
side the points that would arise for consideration are as
under:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
i) Whether the impugned judgments of
the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court suffers from illegality,
perversity in finding the accused No.1
guilty of committing the offences stated
above?
ii) If so, whether the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed
by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First
Appellate Court require interference by
this Court?
iii) What order?
11. On perusal of the evidence placed on record by
the prosecution, the witnesses so examined in the shape
of PWs.3, 4, 9 to 11 have been turned hostile. Therefore,
their evidence never come to the rescue of the
prosecution.
12. The witnesses who have supported the case of
the prosecution are PW1 - Nagaraj (the complainant),
PW6 - Nagaratna (sister of the complainant), PW7 -
Parshuram (husband of PW6) and PW8 - Lata (another
sister of complainant).
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
13. According to the evidence of these witnesses,
on the date of the incident i.e. on 17.05.2012 at 3.00 p.m.
when all of them were moving in a Maruti Omni vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-15/M-4319 at that time, when
they came near Kurubaramallur plot road at that time, this
accused No.1 by putting across his motorbike on the road
stopped the car. Abused the inmates of the car in filthy
language. When the complainant, Nagaratna, Parashuram
and Lata came out of the car at that time, accused No.1
asked them that, where they have kept one Smt. Renuka
his kept mistress and asked them to disclose her
whereabouts. By saying so, he started abusing them in
filthy language.
14. It is alleged that, accused No.1 caught hold the
saree of Nagaratna, dragged her saree so also hairs, made
her to fall down and treaded her. Thus, he tried to
outrage her modesty. In this scuffle, the wedlock worn by
Nagaratna was torn. The accused damaged the Maruti
Omni car's glass and caused loss. This factual evidence is
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
spoken to by PW.1- complainant i.e., Nagaraj, the victim
Nagaratna - PW2, husband of Nagaratna by name
Parshuram - PW7 and another sister of the complainant by
name Lata - PW8. Even they speak that, in the morning
on that day, accused No.1 came to the house of Smt.
Roopa and asked the complainant's family members that
why they have taken the girl from their house which
belongs to baster's family. At that time, they asked
whereabouts of Smt. Renuka. Initially they searched the
car and thereafter, after 2 k.ms., by overtaking the vehicle
accused No.1 went ahead and stopped the car and
committed the aforesaid offences.
15. All these witnesses as a whole have stated with
regard to the commission of offence by accused No.1 in
material particulars. The evidence of PWs.1, 6, 7 and 8
being the eyewitnesses and victim as rightly observed by
the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is
corroborative in nature. Though, lengthy cross
examination is directed to all these witnesses, the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
presence of all these witnesses in the said Maruti Omni car
and the incident so happened with them is not disputed by
this accused No.1/revision petitioner. So to say, except
the denial in the cross examination nothing worth is
elicited from the mouth of these witnesses so as to
disbelieve their version in their examination-in-chief.
16. This PW.6 - Nagaratna Parshuram
Kulumeyellapur is a victim and according to her evidence
when accused No.1 and his men stopped the car, she
asked accused No.1 stating that, exceeding the act of the
police he is inspecting the vehicle. At that time, accused
No.1 dragged her from the car, removed her saree, torn
her blouse, treaded her and assaulted with stone. Even
the front glass of the car was damaged. Accused No.1
assaulted CW.9 on his chest. The said incident has taken
place at 3.00 p.m. on that day. When the villagers of
Kurubaramallur came there, accused ran away from the
said place. She went to hospital at 5.00 p.m. on that day.
She identified her saree, blouse and jacket worn on that
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
day which were marked at M.O. Nos.1 to 4. As stated
supra, she has been directed with severe and searching
cross examination by the defense, but nothing worth is
elicited from her mouth.
17. PW.7 - Parshuram Fakirappa Kulumeyellapur is
an eyewitness to the said incident so also PW.8 - Lata
Siddalingappa Lakkannavar. These two witnesses have
also supported the case of the prosecution in material
particulars.
18. With regard to the occurrence of said incident,
prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW.2 - Beerappa
Honnappa Sangali. According to his evidence, in his
presence scene of offence panchanama was conducted and
M.O. Nos.1 to 3 were seized. But in the cross examination
he states that, he was not called to the police station and
no seizure panchanama was conducted. He has put his
signature near Savanur bus stand. His examination-in-
chief was conducted on 19.02.2014 and he was cross
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
examined on 20.11.2014 after lapse of almost nine
months.
19. It is argued by the learned HCGP that, because
of lapse of time, this PW.2 must have been won over by
the accused.
20. PW.5 - Rajesh Chandrappa Hirekerur is pancha
to Ex.P.7 wherein, under this panchanama there was the
seizure of Maruti Omni and it is not disputed in the cross
examination in proper manner.
21. With regard to the injuries being sustained by
complainant and other injured stated above, on
17.05.2012 complainant and Smt. Nagaratna went to the
hospital and PW.13 the doctor has treated them. He has
issued the wound certificates as per Ex.P.13 and 14. With
regard to the panchanama so conducted by the
Investigating Officer, Ex.P.2 and P.3. So also damage to
the said Maruti Omni, photographs were produced. Ex.P.4
is the panchanama of scene of offence, Ex.P.5 is the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
seizure panchanama, so also Ex.P.6 and P.7. Ex.P.8 is the
photograph of the motorbike which was seized from
accused No.1.
22. On scrupulous reading of all these documentary
evidence it is do suggest that, this accused No.1 being the
author of the crime has committed the offence in the
manner stated in the complaint by the complainant -
Nagaraj.
23. Under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, we find the words used as 'proved' , 'disproved' ,
'not proved'. A fact is said to be proved when, after
considering the matters before it, the Court either believes
it to adjust or consider its existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that with
exists.
24. Disproved means a fact is said to be disproved
when, after considering the matters before it, the Court
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
either believes that is does not exists, or consider its non
existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under
the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it does not exists.
25. Not proved means a fact is said not be proved
when it is neither proved or nor proved.
26. If these aforesaid principles are applied to the
evidence of PW.6 and PW.8 if scrutinized properly can be
stated that, the evidence of these witnesses read as a
whole have a ring of truth. The minor discrepancies or
trival matters which have been brought on record in the
cross examination have no importance. No doubt all the
witnesses are relatives interse. But it is settled principle of
law that, evidence of relative witnesses cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that, the witnesses are
related to each other. It is held that, in case the evidence
have a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it
can and certainly should be relied upon. If there are
minor contradictions in the depositions of such witnesses
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be
dubbed as improvements. The witnesses PWs.1, 2, 6 and
8 have consistently spoken about the role of accused No.1
being the author of the crime in assaulting Nagaratna the
sister of the complainant. Therefore, when such evidence
is brought on record by the prosecution, their evidence
have to be accepted.
27. A specific allegation is made by the prosecution
that, this accused No.1 tried to outrage the modesty of
sister of complainant by name Nagaratna. She has spoken
to that effect in her evidence on oath. The offence relating
to outraging modesty of woman is concerned, now a days,
notion of offences against woman is increasing
exponentially. This has, indeed, taken a toll on the lives of
women leading to mental and physical agony. The
concept of outraging modesty of woman is described
clearly under Section 354 of IPC. Section 355 of IPC deals
with use of assault or criminal force with the intention to
dishonor person without any grave provocation. As per
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
Joseph Addison "modesty is not only an ornament, but
also a guard to virtue."
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down various
expressions with regard to modesty of a woman in catana
of judgments. Section 10 of the IPC, explains woman as -
"a female human being of any age" regardless of age, the
woman's modesty can be concluded as outrage in the
events fall within the domain of exposition of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments. Section 354 of IPC
reads as under:
354. Assault or criminal force to
woman with intent to outrage her
modesty.--
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to
any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it
to be likely that he will thereby outrage her
modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which shall not
be less than one year but which may extend to
five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
29. On perusal of Section 354 of IPC, the essential
ingredients require for the commission of offence of
outraging the modesty of a women are:
i) the person assaulted must be a women
ii) the accused must have used criminal force
on he
iii) use of criminal force and mere knowledge
of the act that modesty can be outraged by
the said act.
30. If these ingredients are applied to the present
facts of the case, victim Nagaratna is a woman and
accused No.1 has used criminal force on the victim by
dragging her saree and he has torn her blouse, assaulted
her by using criminal force with knowledge that, he has
outraged her modesty.
31. The victim herself has spoken about outraging
her modesty by accused No.1 and caused insulting her
modesty and that there was a threat of actual mischief on
her and he has used the criminal force and assaulted her.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishaka
and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others1, held
that the offence relating to the modesty of a woman
cannot be treated as unimportant and minor. It is true
that for convicting an individual under Section 354 of IPC,
the burden of proof lies on prosecution that it has to be
proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is settled principle
of law that such offences cannot be treated as minor or
negligible offence as held in Vishaka and Others (supra).
The fundamental of differential component of Section 354
of IPC is utilization of assault or criminal force, where the
accused No.1 in this case has dragged the saree of victim
Nagaratna, torn her blouse so worn by her, such a
demonstration made by accused No.1 can very well be
termed as outraging the modesty of victim. The evidence
of other witnesses who were the eyewitnesses to the said
incident proves the actual activity of accused No.1 which
comes with the definition of 'outraging the modesty of a
AIR 1997 SC 3011
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
woman'. With regard to the clear definition of outraging a
modesty of woman was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ramkripal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pardesh2. Thus,
the provisions of IPC makes it very clear that the intention
to outrage the modesty of a women as a fundamental and
the most important element of the offence as it has been
referred back whoever means to insult the modesty of a
woman, utterly word, makes is sound etc., is stated to
have committed the offence. The prosecution is able to
establish ingredients of offence under Section 354 of IPC
against accused No.1 who had a simple knowledge that his
acts are sufficient to constitute the offence.
33. The learned Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court have rightly concluded, that this accused
No.1 has committed the offence against victim lady. I do
not find any factual or legal error by the Courts below with
regard to the finding against accused No.1 of outraging
the modesty of victim. There was a culpable intention on
(2007) 11 SCC 265
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
the part of accused No.1 to commit such an offence and
victim has suffered such outraging of modesty in his
hands. The act of the accused No.1 has definitely harmed
the feminine decency and dignity. Even he has used
offensive words to the sense of modesty, decency and
repugnant to womanly results in outrage to the modesty of
a woman. The First Appellate Court has come to the
conclusion that this accused No.1 is responsible for
committing offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354,
427 of IPC. Even the wound certificate so marked in this
case proved the injuries on the person of the victim
because of assault on her by accused No.1. The wound
certificate is marked at Ex.P.14. The injuries so stated are
simple in nature and it was opinion of the doctor that the
said injuries might have been caused by blunt surface and
the age of the injury when examined was 4-8 hours.
Following are the injuries so mentioned in Ex.P.14 being
suffered by the victim - Nagaratna. So also Nagaraj the
complainant has suffered simple injuries as mentioned in
Ex.P.13, they read:
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
Injuries sustained by Nagaratna:
"Tan and tenderness over chest
Tan and tenderness of upper and lower
back right mastoid
Tender over right and left forearm and
arm"
Injuries sustained by Nagaraj:
"Tan and Tanderness over right arm and
forearm
CLW over 0.5 X 0.2 cm over right mastoid"
34. While marking these documents no objections
were raised by the defense. Doctor has also spoken to
that effect. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court is
right in confirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed against the accused No.1. Both the
Courts below have considered the evidence in proper
perspective and have found the accused No.1 guilty of
committing the aforesaid offences.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
35. In view of the discussion made above, I do not
find any grounds to interfere into the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed against accused
No.1 by the Courts below. More so, this Court being the
Revisional Court cannot lightly interfere into the
concurrent findings of the Courts below by sitting as an
Appellate Court. Hence, there is no merit in this revision
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the aforesaid points for consideration are
answered against the revision petitioner/accused.
36. Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Revision petition filed by the
petitioner is dismissed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Civil Judge
and JMFC, Savanur and confirmed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri,
against accused No.1 are hereby affirmed.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6165
iii) The accused No.1 shall surrender
before the Trial Court within 15 days from
today to undergo the sentence.
iv) The Trial Court shall secure his
presence and commit him to prison for
undergoing sentence.
v) Send back the Trial Court as well as
First Appellate Court records along with copy
of the judgment forthwith.
vi) The Registry is directed to
communicate the operative portion of this
order to both the Courts below by mail
forthwith for compliance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
