Karnataka High Court

Ganapati S/O Iswar Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024

                             -1-
                                   CRL.RP No.100188 of 2020



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100188 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1.    GANAPATI S/O ISWAR NAIK
      AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
      R/O: KALLUR, SIDDAPUR-581355,
      UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

2.    MANJAPPA S/O ISWAR NAIK
      AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
      R/O: KALLUR, SIDDAPUR-581355,
      UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIDDAPUR POLICE STATION,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
BY ADDL. S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580011.
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF CR. P.C, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.06/2014 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 02/01/2014 PASSED BY THE
JMFC, SIDDAPUR, IN C.C.NO.172/2013, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 353, 324, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34
IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING
AND RESERVED ON 04.12.2023 BEFORE THE DHARWAD BENCH,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL  BENCH     OF    BENGALURU,   THROUGH    VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                     -2-
                                          CRL.RP No.100188 of 2020



                                  ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,

being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 02.01.2014 in C.C.No.172/2013 on the

file of the J.M.F.C., Siddapur and its confirmation

judgment and order dated 21.11.2019 in Crl.A.No.6/2014

on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

U.K., Karwar, Sitting at Sirsi, seeking to set aside the

concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below,

wherein the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 are

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 353,

324, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short

'IPC').

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be

considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant

being an employee of Forest Department was on his

official duty. On 15.02.2013, at about 10.15 p.m., he is

said to have received information that some unknown

persons were cutting the trees in Forest Sy.No.15 of

Kallur Village. After having received the information, the

complainant along with PWs.1 and 7 were proceeding

towards the said place. When they were moving in the

direction to reach Sy.No.15, the accused who were

standing in Forest Sy.No.20, have restrained the

complainant and his staff and started abusing in filthy

language and assaulted with stick and caused injuries to

the watchman who is cited as PW.4. The accused have

assaulted on the head of PW.4 and caused injuries and

also threatened the other witnesses. Being aggrieved by

the same, the complainant lodged a complaint against the

accused. The jurisdictional police have registered a case

in Crime No.22/2013 for the offences punishable under

Sections 353, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After having

conducted the investigation, the jurisdictional police have

submitted the charge sheet.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution

examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and got

marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and also

identified two material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The

accused have been convicted by the Trial Court. Being

aggrieved by same, the accused preferred an appeal

before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed

the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

5. Heard Sri S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the Courts below have failed to appreciate

the evidence properly, consequently, the impugned

judgments have been passed.

7. It is further submitted that the mahazar witnesses

namely PWs.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the

prosecution. The recovery of the tree which the accused

said to have cut has not been proved through the

independent witnesses. The evidence of official witnesses

ought not to have been considered without independent

corroboration. Having failed to consider the said aspect,

resulted in passing the impugned judgments which are

required to be set aside. Since there is an error in

appreciating the evidence, the petitioner is seeking

indulgence of this Court and prays to allow the petition.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent - State vehemently justified the

concurrent findings and submitted that merely because of

the independent witnesses have turned hostile, that itself

is not a criteria to reject the evidence of the official

witnesses. The official witnesses were consistent in their

evidence that they have been assaulted by the petitioners

when they were proceeding to apprehend the petitioners

who were cutting the trees.

9. It is further submitted that the person who sustained

injury and the Doctor who treated the injured have

supported the case and their evidence is held sufficient to

record the conviction. The evidence of official witnesses

cannot be brushed aside merely because they are

interested witnesses. If the evidence of official witnesses

inspires the confidence of the Court, their evidence may

be considered for recording the conviction.

10. It is further submitted that the Courts below after having

considered the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 7 recorded the

conviction which is appropriate and there is no error

committed by the Courts below in recording the

conviction. Therefore, interference in the said findings

may not be required. Making such submission, the

learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss

the petition.

11. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below

in recording the conviction, this Court being a Revisional

Court having limited jurisdiction to interfere with the

concurrent findings. However, interference can be made

only when there is error or illegality in the findings of the

Courts below.

12. Having regard to the proposition of law, it is appropriate

to have a cursory look of all the witnesses. PW.1 is a

witness to Ex.P1 and he has partly supported the case of

the prosecution stating that he has affixed his signature

to Ex.P1.

13. PW.2 is a witness to Ex.P1. He has stated that he has

signed Ex.P1 on 16.02.2013. He has further stated that

the Jungle wood and blood stained T-Shirt were seized in

his presence. In the cross-examination, he has stated

that he was invited as panch witness. Though he has

supported the case of the prosecution, he failed to explain

as to whether the petitioners herein have been deterred

in discharging official duties of PWs.3, 4 and others.

14. PW.3 was working as a Forest Guard and the

complainant. As per his evidence, the petitioners herein

have assaulted them and deterred them from discharging

their official duty. He further states that the accused

No.1 assaulted on the head of PW.4, consequently, PW.4

sustained injury on his head. Even though he has been

subjected to cross-examination, nothing has been elicited

to discredit his evidence.

15. PW.4 was working as watchman of the same Forest area.

He said to have accompanied PW.3 and he is consistent in

his evidence that the accused No.1 had assaulted him on

his head and caused injuries. As per his evidence, after

having received the blow on his head, he became

unconscious. He is consistent in his evidence regarding

the incident, assault and threat made by the petitioners.

16. PW.5 who was working as Forest Guard and also

supported the case of the prosecution. He has deposed in

consonance with the evidence of PWs.3 and 4.

17. PW.6 is said to be witness to Ex.P4 under which M.O.2

was seized. He states that PW.4 had sustained injuries

on his head. However, he was not aware about the

assault.

18. PW.7 - Doctor said to have treated PW.4 on 15.02.2013

at about 11.00 p.m., and issued wound certificate as per

Ex.P5. According to her, the injury which sustained to

PW.4 may be caused on assault being made by M.O.1.

19. P.W.8 is said to be an independent witness to the

incident, has turned hostile.

20. PW.9 is Range Forest Officer. He has confirmed the beat

work of PWs.3, 4 and 5 on 15.02.2013. The document

showing that they were deputed work on the said day has

been marked as Ex.P7.

21. Similarly, PWs.10 and 11 are the Sub Inspectors said to

have conducted investigation. PW.11 filed the charge

sheet against the petitioners.

22. On careful reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, it

appears that the petitioners have assaulted PW.4 with the

wooden stick on his head and consequently, he has

sustained injuries. Immediately, on the same day, PW.4

along with others went to the hospital for treatment.

PW.7-Doctor who treated PW.4 and issued wound

certificate as per Ex.P5. There is nothing to show that no

such incident had taken place and the petitioners have

been falsely implicated in the case.

23. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to

take note of the fact that as per the averments of the

complaint, PW.3 after having received the message that

some unknown persons were cutting the trees, was

proceeding to Sy.No.15 via Sy.No.20 to avoid cutting of

trees along with his staff. However, no materials have

been seized to substantiate the incident. In other words,

PW.3 has failed to recover either the tools used for

cutting the trees or the tree of which the petitioners have

cut. In the absence of any concrete evidence regarding

the incident, the presence of these petitioners at the spot

which appears to be strange and unbelievable.

Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording

the conviction appears to be perverse and illegal and the

same is required to be set aside.

24. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to

pass the following:

- 10 -

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.


     (ii)    The   judgment      of    conviction   and    order   of

             sentence     dated        02.01.2014       passed     in

C.C.No.172/2013 by the J.M.F.C., Siddapur and

the judgment and order dated 21.11.2019

passed in Crl.A.No.6/2014 by the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar, Sitting

at Sirsi are set aside.