Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Shankar Babu Serigar @ Shankar on 26 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
CRL.RP No. 469 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 469 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU - 1.
...PETITIONER
(VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2021
BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPPA, HCGP)
AND:
SHANKAR BABU SERIGAR @ SHANKAR,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. BABU DEVADIGA,
RESIDING NEAR BAILUR SAIBABA MANDIR,
76, BADAGABETTU VILLAGE,
Digitally UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.
signed by ...RESPONDENT
YAMUNA K L
Location: (BY SRI. SHANKAR NARAYANA BHAT B, ADVOCATE)
High Court of
Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
25.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN
CRL.A.NO.61/2017 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
07.08.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.196/2012, ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 353, 323, 504, 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
CRL.RP No. 469 of 2020
ORDER
Taking note of the reasons assigned in the affidavit in
support of the application, I.A.No.1/2020 delay of 57 days
condoned.
2. Heard on merits with regard to the admission.
3. State has preferred the present revision petition
against the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.196/2012
confirmed in Crl.A.No.61/2017 where under accused has
been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections
353, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under:
5. Complaint came to be lodged stating that on
24.11.2011 at about 05:05 pm, when one Vittal Kharvi
was working as a senior Manager in Karnataka State
Financial Corporation situated at Anantha towers opposite
to Udupi Court Complex, accused entered into his cabin,
forcibly picked up the quarrel with the said Vittal Kharvi,
abused him in filthy language so as to brake the peace and
also assaulted him by hands and obstructed from
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
discharging his official work and when the quarrel was
pacified, accused gave a life threat to the said Vittal
Kharvi. Jurisdictional police registered the case and
conducted a detailed investigation and filed charge sheet.
Presence of accused was secured before the Trial
Magistrate, charges were framed. Accused pleaded not
guilty and therefore, Trial was held.
6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in
all six witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6 and as
many as 47 documents were placed on record as Exs.P1 to
P47.
7. Accused statement as is contemplated under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Trial Magistrate
and after hearing the parties on cumulative consideration
of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
acquitted the accused by recording a finding that
prosecution evidence was not sufficient enough to
establish the charges leveled against the accused.
8. In paragraph No.19 of the judgment of the Trial
Court, the learned Trial Magistrate has also referred to the
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
inconsistency in the case of the prosecution and
contradictions obtained in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, which would throw sufficient doubt about the
veracity of the version of the complainant Vittal Kharvi in
establishing the incident.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, State has
preferred an appeal before the district Court in
Crl.A.No.61/2017.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records and the presence of the accused,
heard the parties in detail and in the light of the grounds
urged by the State questioning the validity and veracity of
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Magistrate,
recorded a categorical findings that the material evidence
on record has been properly appreciated by the learned
Trial Magistrate and found that the order of acquittal
passed against the accused is just and proper having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, State is in
this revision.
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
12. Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition, vehemently contended that both the
Courts have not properly appreciated the material
evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused and
sought for allowing the revision petition.
13. He also pointed out that the contradiction that
has been pointed out by the learned Trial Judge in
paragraph No.19 of the judgment are minor in nature and
did not cause any serious dent to the case of the
prosecution.
14. He further argued that admittedly the
complainant Vittal Kharvi was working as Senior Manager
in Karnataka State Financial Corporation as of the date of
incident and the fact that accused entered into his
chamber has been established. Without there being any
appointment and without there being any pending work of
the accused, why would he entered the chamber of the
complainant and picked up the quarrel with the
complainant is a question that has not been properly
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
appreciated by both the Courts and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
15. Learned counsel Sri. B. Shankar Naik Bhat
representing the respondent absent.
16. In view of the contentions heard on behalf of
the revision petitioner this Court bestowed it's best
attention to the material on record.
17. On such perusal of the material on record
especially the order of the Trial Magistrate and the learned
Judge in the First Appellate Court, it is crystal clear that
the prosecution has chosen to examine only 6 witnesses.
No doubt the complainant and the circumstantial witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution. But in the
cross examination of those witnesses there are sufficient
contradictions that have been elicited which would throw
sufficient doubt as to the very genesis of the crime and the
way in which the incident have occurred on the
24.11.2011.
18. Further, the examination of the doctor did not
improve the case of the prosecution as admittedly there
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
were no blood injuries found on the body of the
complainant. More so, charge was also under Section 323
of IPC.
19. When there is sufficient doubt in the case of the
prosecution, learned Trial Magistrate was justified in
rerecording order of acquittal. Learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court, re-appreciating the material evidence on
record has dismissed the appeal of accused.
20. It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis that an order of acquittal recorded by a duly
consequent Courts, doubles the innocence of the accused
before the appellate Court.
21. In the case on hand since both the Courts have
acquitted the accused, the accused who is the respondent
in this revision petition enjoys now triple innocence.
22. No doubt the revisional powers of this Court
cannot be curtail only by recording acquittal by both the
Courts. This Court can very well exercised it's power if
there is a patent factual defect in impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:23704
23. In the case on hand, the revisional grounds and
the material on record would not point out any such patent
factual defect. As such, following dictum of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the case of CHANDRAPPA V/S. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and RAVI
KAPOOR V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in
(2012) 9 SCC 284, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the matter does not require to be admit for further
consideration. Hence, following:
ORDER
i) Admission declined.
ii) Revision petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LDC
CT: BHK
