Karnataka High Court
Narayan vs State By Hosakote Police on 7 May, 2024
-1-
CRL.RP No. 792 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 792 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYAN
SON OF ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. DEVARAJU
SON OF ABBAPPA
AGED BOUT 36 YEARS
3. MUNIYAPPA
SON OF ABBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. BASAVARAJU
SON OF VARTHURMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
5. VENKATESHA
SON OF ABBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A V RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY HOSAKOTE POLICE
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
CRL.RP No. 792 of 2016
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 24-05-2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.44/2013 THEREBY CONFIRMING CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners /
accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 06.09.2013 in
C.C.No.804/2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Hoskote and its confirmation judgment and
order dated 24.05.2016 in Crl.A.No.44/2013 on the file of
the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural district,
Bengaluru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings
recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners /
accused are convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506 read with section 149
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:-
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.08.2006 at
about 10.30 p.m., PW.1 lodges a complaint stating that
PW.2 being his brother had sold eucalyptus trees to
accused No.1. In the said transaction, 50% of the
amount was paid to PW.2 and remaining balance had to
be paid to his brother by accused No.1.
4. On 04.08.2006, at about 6.00 p.m., PW.2 asked accused
No.1 to pay the balance amount. The accused No.1
quarreled with PW.2 and went away from the place.
Thereafter, around about 8.30 p.m., accused No.1 along
with others went near the house of PW.2 and trespassed
the house and abused him in a filthy language, and
assaulted PW.2 with the clubs. PW.3 who tried to pacify
the matter, had also received blows with clubs, and
accused No.1 stabbed on the chest of PW.3 with knife.
The quarrel was pacified by CWs.4 and 5.
5. After the incident, PW.1 lodged a complaint before the
jurisdictional police regarding the incident, the
jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime
No.369/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 448, 323, 324, 506, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. After
conducting the investigation, charge sheet was
submitted.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined 6 witnesses and got marked 5 documents as
Exs.P1 to P5 and also identified material objects M.Os.1
to 3. The Trial Court held that the accused Nos.1 to 6
are found guilty of the above said offences. On appeal
being filed, the Appellate Court modified the judgment of
the Trial Court by setting aside the order of conviction for
the offences under Sections 323, 448, 504 r/w Section
149 of IPC and confirmed the order of conviction and
sentence of the Trial Court for the offences under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
Hence this revision petition.
7. Heard Sri A V Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent.
8. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that
both the Courts failed to take note of the relationship
between PWs.1 to 3. In fact, PWs.1 to 3 are the
relatives, their evidence should have been scrutinized
properly before recording the conviction. When the entire
case rests on evidence of interested witnesses, the Court
must see the independent corroboration. In the absence
of independent corroboration, conviction ought not to
have been recorded.
9. It is further submitted that PW.6 who is said to be the
eyewitness to the alleged incident, initially not supported
the case, subsequently, he was treated as hostile. In the
cross-examination by the prosecutor, PW.6 admitted
certain things. However, in the defence cross-
examination, PW.6 admitted that he did not see who
assaulted whom. Such being the fact, his evidence loses
its significance as an eyewitness to the incident.
10. It is further submitted that though PW.1 stated in his
complaint that PW.3 was assaulted with a knife on his
chest and no medical records are produced to support the
case. The said contradictory statement creates doubt
regarding the alleged stab. As per the evidence of PW.3,
accused No.5 stabbed his chest with the knife, however,
PW.1 stated in his evidence that accused No.1 stabbed on
the chest of PW.3. This contradictory evidence should
have been considered by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court while analyzing the evidence and benefit
of doubt should have been given.
11. It is further submitted that the Trial Court recorded the
conviction for the offences under Section 323, 324, 504,
506 R/W 34 of IPC in the absence of proper evidence.
Therefore, the concurrent findings are required to be set
aside.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
State vehemently justified the judgments of the Courts
below and submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is
consistent in respect of the quarrel which had taken place
in the house of PW.2. The independent witness namely
PW.6 supported the case of the prosecution. Minor
contradictions or improvements are bound to occur in the
evidence of eyewitnesses, that may not be material
contradiction and the entire evidence of the eyewitnesses
cannot be discarded.
13. It is further submitted that the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court acted upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3
and other official witnesses and recorded the conviction
which requires no interference. Moreover, the Revisional
Court cannot re-assess the evidence except to find out
the illegality or error committed by the Courts below.
Making such submission, learned High Court Government
Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties,
it is appropriate to have a cursory look upon the evidence
of witnesses to ascertain as to whether both the Courts
have committed any error in recording the conviction.
15. PW.1 being the younger brother of PW.2 is said to have
lodged a complaint regarding the quarrel which had taken
place in the house of PW.2. According to him, accused
Nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the house of PW.2 and
assaulted with club and knife. Further, he has stated in
his evidence that after the incident, PWs.1 to 3 have been
threatened with dire consequences etc. PW.1 further
stated in his evidence that PW.3 was stabbed by accused
No.1 with a knife on the chest. However, no medical
records are produced to substantiate the stab injury.
16. PW.2 also stated about the quarrel and stated that
accused No.1 stabbed PW.3 on the chest.
17. PW.3 said to be the injured has stated in his evidence
that accused No.5 - Venkatesh stabbed him on his chest.
18. PW.4 said to be the witness to the spot-cum-recovery
mahazar has turned hostile, not supported the case.
19. PW.5 supposed to be the eyewitness to the incident,
however, has turned hostile.
20. PW.6 - Anjinappa said to be the eyewitness to the
incident, has stated that the accused were assaulting
PWs.2 and 3 with clubs. Except that, he did not see
anything. However, the prosecution treated him as
hostile and thereafter, he was cross-examined by the
prosecutor. In the said cross-examination, he admitted
that accused No.1 stabbed on the chest of PW.3.
However, in the cross-examination of defence, he
admitted that he did not see who was assaulting whom.
21. On a conjoint reading of the evidence of these witnesses,
it creates doubt regarding the alleged stab injury.
According to PWs.1 and 2, accused No.1 - Narayanappa
stabbed PW.3 on his chest, however, the evidence of
PW.3 discloses that he was stabbed by accused No.5. All
the three witnesses being eyewitnesses to the incident
are inconsistent in their evidence in respect of stab
injury. Moreover, the knife which is said to have been
recovered in presence of PW.4, but, PW.4 has turned
hostile in respect of seizure of M.Os.1 and 2.
22. The prosecution has failed to prove the stab injury which
is said to have been caused to PW.3 by producing wound
certificate. Mere recovery of the clubs which are marked
as M.Os.1 and 2 and knife - M.O.3 is not sufficient to say
that those weapons have been used for assaulting PWs.2
and 3 in the absence of medical records. The Trial Court
and the Appellate Court while analyzing the evidence
should have recorded the inconsistencies in the evidence
of alleged eyewitnesses. Having failed to consider the
same, resulted in passing the impugned judgments.
23. The Investigating Officer has not recovered the blood-
stained clothes of PW.3 and has also not produced any
wound certificates or medical records pertaining to the
treatment allegedly taken at different hospitals. If the
evidence of eyewitnesses especially related witnesses
does not inspire the confidence of the Court, the Court
must seek corroboration from independent witnesses. If
the evidence of independent witnesses does not inspire
the confidence of the Court, the conviction should not be
recorded. However, in the present case, the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 even though inconsistent regarding the
incident, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court recorded
the conviction based on their evidence which is not
proper and hence the conviction is held to be
unsustainable.
24. In the light of the observations 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 06.09.2013 in C.C.No.804/2009
on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC
Court, Hoskote and judgment and order dated
24.05.2016 in Crl.A.No.44/2013 on the file of
the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
district, Bengaluru, are set aside.
(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss
