Karnataka High Court
Vaijanath S/O Bhimarao Vilaspur vs The State Through Kamalnagar Ps on 19 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
CRL.RP.200075/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRL.R.P.NO.200075 OF 2018 (397)
BETWEEN
VAIJANATH S/O BHIMARAO VILASPUR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIVPUR, TQ. AURAD-B,
DIST. BIDAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE THROUGH KAMALNAGAR PS
NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HCKB AT KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND
ORDERS OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING
OFFICER, OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.65/2012, DATED 20.06.2018 AND LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, AURAD-B, IN C.C.NO.13/2008 DATED
2
CRL.RP.200075/2018
08.10.2012, WHICH ARE ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY, IN VIEW OF THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Aurad in
C.C.No.13/2008 dated 08.10.2012 and confirmed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in
Criminal Appeal No.65/2012 vide judgment dated
20.06.2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before
the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that on 11.09.2007, the election for the post of President and
Vice President of Gram Panchayat Murki village was
scheduled. CW.1 i.e., PW.3 was appointed as a Returning
Officer of the election and the accused as well as CW.16 i.e.,
PW.20 had contested for the post of President of the said
panchayat. It is alleged that the complainant came to the
said panchayat office to conduct the election and by 5.00
p.m. the process of casting the votes was over. Thereafter,
CW.1 - complaint and CW.18, who was Secretary of the
Village Panchayat along with CW.21 were counting the ballot
papers. It is alleged, at that time, the accused abused the
complainant in filthy language in Marathi and gave
provocation to him as well as criminally intimidated him by
life threat. It is further alleged that he has also snatched
seven polled ballot papers, which were opened and were kept
on the table for counting and torn them. It is further alleged
that he has also damaged the furniture and caused loss to
the panchayat office. In this regard, the complainant has
lodged a complaint before Kamalnagar police station, Bidar,
which was registered in Crime No.136/2017.
4. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that
the accused had obstructed in lawful performance of official
duty by public servant and he also came in the way of
smooth conduct of the election. The investigation was
undertook and the accused was arrested on the same day
and he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he
was enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer has
investigated the crime, seized the material objects and after
recording the statement of the witnesses, he submitted the
charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 353, 427, 504, 506 and 171F of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 135(1) and
136(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
5. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and accused
appeared through his counsel and he was provided with
prosecution papers as contemplated under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
6. Then the prosecution has examined in all 23
witnesses as PWs.1 to 23 and placed reliance on 15
documents marked as Exs.P1 to P15 and 3 material objects
marked as MOs.1 to 3. After conclusion of the evidence of
the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain
the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case
of the prosecution. The case of the accused was of total
denial. However, he did not choose to lead any oral or
documentary evidence in support of his defence.
7. After hearing the arguments and after perusing
the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate
has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 353, 504, 506 and 171F of the IPC as well as under
Section 136(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
by imposing sentence of imprisonment as well as fine with
default clause.
8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the accused has approached the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bidar in Criminal Appeal
No.65/2012. The learned Sessions Judge after re-
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed
the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate vide
judgment dated 20.06.2018.
9. Against these concurrent findings, the accused is
before this Court by way of this revision.
10. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the
records.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that there is no evidence to show toring of ballot
papers and PW.18 has partly turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. He would also assert that PW.20 is an
interested witness as he has contested the election for the
post of President against the accused and all other witnesses,
who have supported the case of the prosecution, are official
witnesses. He would also assert that the independent
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution
and the evidence consists of contradictory statements. He
would also contend that the offence under Section 171F of
IPC is non-cognizable one and hence challenges the entire
process. Therefore, he seeks for allowing the petition.
12. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would support the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the
learned Sessions Judge. He would contend that PW.3 is a
Returning Officer and he had conducted the election and his
evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.21, who was
there to assist the complainant/PW.3 and their evidence is
again corroborated by the evidence of PW.18, who is the
Village Accountant. He would also contend that their
evidence is again corroborated by the evidence of PWs.17
and 19, who are the police officials, who have posted there
for security and for smooth conduct of the election and
PW.20 is another eyewitness. He would also assert that the
evidence of seizure mahazar witnesses disclose the drawing
of mahazar and seizure of material objects and the evidence
of the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused and no grounds are forthcoming to falsely implicate
the accused and there is no animosity between the official
witnesses including complainant, who is the Returning Officer
with accused and have no personal transaction with the
accused. He would further submit that both the Courts
below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence
in a proper perspective and have rightly convicted the
accused by imposing a reasonable sentence. Hence, he
would contend that the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by both the Courts do not call for any
interference and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
13. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, now the following point would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court are
perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for
any interference by this Court?"
14. It is an admitted fact that the election for the post
of President and Vice President of Village Panchayat, Murki
was scheduled on 11.09.2016,. It is further admitted fact
that PW.3 - complainant was the Returning Officer and
CW.21 was posted to assist him and they were deputed as
per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. It is
further evident that the accused and PW.20 have contested
for the post of President and PW.18 was the Village
Accountant, who was assisting the Returning Officer in
smooth conducting of the election.
15. It is evident that PWs.3 and 21 were nominated
for smooth conducting the election and they had no personal
interest. PW.3 is undisputedly a public servant and was a
Returning Officer nominated by the Deputy Commissioner
and he was further assisted by PWs.18 and 21. The
evidence of PW.3 discloses that after completion of the
process of casting the votes, he was counting the ballot
papers and at that time, the accused came there, abused
him in vulgar language in Marathi and he got information
about meaning from the others and recorded those words
and accused has also torn seven ballot papers and damaged
the furniture. Though this witness was cross-examined at
length, nothing worth was elicited in the cross-examination.
16. Further, PW.21 is another eyewitness, who was
deputed for assisting the complainant in smooth conducting
of the election. His evidence also corroborates the evidence
of the complainant - PW.3. Their evidence is again
corroborated by the evidence of PWs.18 and 20. PW.18 no
doubt has partly turned hostile, but he is a Village
Accountant and his evidence discloses that there was a
galata inside the office. Admittedly, PW.3 was discharging
his official duty as a Returning Officer of the election and he
was a public servant.
17. Apart from that, PW.17, 19 and 22 were the police
officials in the uniform and they have also supported the case
of the prosecution. A simple defence was set up in the
cross-examination that due to animosity and at the behest of
PW.20 all the witnesses are deposing falsely. But, PWs.3
and 21 as well as the police officials were from different
places and were deputed for conducting smooth election.
They had no personal interest and their duty was to see that
the fair elections are being conducted. But, the evidence
discloses that the accused has obstructed in conducting the
fair election and he has destroyed the entire process of
election. It has come in the evidence that due to this aspect,
the election came to be postponed and after the fortnight
again the election was held wherein PW.20 was again elected
as the President of the said Village Panchayat.
18. No doubt, the other members of the village
panchayat, who are independent witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution. But, admittedly the
incident has taken place inside the polling booth in the office
wherein the counting was going on and all the witnesses
were waiting outside and their hostility does not have any
relevance. It is important to note here that PW.3 was
interested with duty of conducting fair elections in a
democratic set up and the sanctity of the elections is
required to be maintained. The Returning Officer is an
unbiased person and not interested in the result, but his duty
was only to hold the elections in unbiased manner. In the
instant case, no allegations were forthcoming that PW.3 -
complainant was biased or he is supporting PW.20. The
simple assertion is that at the behest of PW.20, all the
witnesses are giving false evidence, but what was need for
all the witnesses to head the request of PW.20 to give false
evidence against accused is not at all forthcoming.
19. Further, MO.1 consisting of seven polled ballot
papers and MO.2 are the ballot papers, which were found
intact and MO.3 is the table, which was alleged to have been
used. No doubt, the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile,
but they did not explain as to what compelled to them to
sign on the mahazar without knowing the contents thereof.
Hence, it is evident that they are not interested in getting
themselves involved in the dispute and they thought it safe
way to turn hostile. But, it is the duty of each citizen to
assist in fair conducting of elections. Though mahazar
witnesses have turned hostile, however, the evidence of
PW.3, 18, 20 and 21 coupled with the evidence of PWs.17,
19 and 22 prove the allegations made by the prosecution and
the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
20. During the course of the arguments, it is
alternatively submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that only fine may be imposed by setting aside the
imprisonment. It is important to note here that the accused
has contested for the post of President of panchayat and
obstructed in smooth conduct of the election. He ought to
have been a model to the public at large and the sanctity of
the election is required to be restored and shall be
maintained. Hence, to maintain the same, it is necessary to
impose severe sentence so that other should learn a lesson
desist from indulging in similar activities. The arguments
regarding not obtaining permission by the Inspector in
investigating for non-cognizable offence holds no water as
other offences are cognizable offences. The learned
Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have
elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence
and appreciated the same in a proper perspective and have
rightly convicted the accused. The approach of both the
Courts below is just and proper and does not suffer from any
perversity or illegality.
21. Apart from that, the learned Magistrate has
imposed a reasonable sentence and considering the conduct
of the accused in disturbing the very election process itself
and targeting the Government Officials, who were deputed
for fair conduct of the election as a Returning Officer, the
sentence imposed cannot be said to be excess and such
attitude is required to be curtailed in order to maintain
democratic process that too in a civilized society. Hence, the
question of interference with the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence does not arise at all.
22. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge
does not call for any interference. As such, the point under
consideration is answered in the negative. Hence, the
revision petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive
for consideration and accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) The revision petition stands dismissed.
b) Registry is directed to send back the records
to the Trial Court along with copy of this
judgment with a direction to secure the
presence of the accused/revision petitioner
for serving the sentence.
c) The revision petitioner/accused is also
directed to surrender before the Trial Court
within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRT
