Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Prasad @ Thirthaprasad @ Pacchu on 27 May, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
CRL.RP No. 220 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 220 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VENOORU POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAR, HCGP)
AND:
PRASAD @ THIRTHAPRASAD @ PACCHU,
S/O LATE VEERAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT JAYALAXMI NIVASA,
KANTHARABETTU, ARAMBODI VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
Digitally DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 214.
signed by R ...RESPONDENT
MANJUNATHA
Location: (RESPONDENT SERVED)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2020
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.163/2016 BY THE VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. DISTRICT MANGALURU
AND SET ASIDE THE ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 04.08.2016 IN
C.C.NO.568/2011 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BELTHANGADY, D.K., DISTRICT, MANGALORE AND
CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 341, 354, 323, 304, 506 OF IPC AND ALLOW THE RP.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
CRL.RP No. 220 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State. Respondent though served
with the notice, remained absent.
2. Present revision petition is filed by the State
challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in
CC No.568/2011 where under the respondent/accused is
acquitted which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.163/2016
by the order dated 09.01.2020.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
A complaint came to be filed by the complainant, who is
the alleged victim in the incident on 07.07.2011 stating that on
06.07.2011 at about 6.30 p.m., when the complainant was
proceeding in the public road in Arambodi village, accused
came from the opposite side and wrongfully restrained her and
with an intention to outrage her modesty, he indecently
touched the body of the complainant and when the same was
resisted, accused assaulted her with hands and when the
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
complainant raised hue and cry, her mother who was working
nearby arrived on the scene and looking at the same, accused
ran away from the spot. The police after registering the case
for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323, 504
and 506 of IPC, investigated the matter inter-alia, arrested the
accused on 07.07.2011 and filed a charge sheet.
4. The presence of the accused was secured before the
Trial Court and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not
guilty. Therefore, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses to
prove the case of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and relied
on 5 documentary evidence on record which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5.
5. On conclusion of the recording of the evidence, the
learned Trial Judge recorded the statement of the accused and
on consideration of the material evidence on record, came to
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the
case and therefore, passed an order of acquittal.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the State filed an
appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
No.163/2016 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.
7. The First Appellate Court after securing the
presence of the accused and securing the records of the Trial
Court, heard the parties in detail and on reconsideration of the
material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the State.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has
preferred the present revision petition.
9. Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HGCP reiterating
the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently
contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated
the material evidence on record especially the oral evidence of
the complainant in the form of P.W.1 and has wrongly acquitted
the accused and sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. He also pointed out that the minor discrepancies
found in the case of the prosecution has been blown out of the
proportion by the defence which has been accepted by the
learned Trial Judge in recording the order of acquittal and
therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
11. He also pointed out that the admissions obtained in
the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, did not cause any
serious dent to the case of the prosecution and therefore,
sought for allowing the revision petition.
12. Respondent/accused though served with the notice,
remained absent.
13. Sri.D.G.Chinnappa Gowda, learned counsel has
been requested by this Court to assist the Court as Amicus
Curie.
14. Learned amicus curie supported the judgment of
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and contended that
when both the Courts have consecutively recorded an order of
acquittal, hardly there is any scope for this Court that too in the
revisional jurisdiction to upset the finding recorded by both the
Courts and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
15. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the case of the prosecution is that on
06.07.2011 at about 6.30 p.m., in the Arombodi village of
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
Beltangdi taluk, when the complainant was proceeding on the
public road, accused came from the opposite side and with an
intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant, restrained
her from her free movement and indecently touched the body
of the complainant and same was resisted by the complainant
by raising hue and cry. At that juncture, the accused assaulted
the complainant with hands and when the said incident has
occurred, mother of the complainant, who was also present
nearby, arrived on the scene and looking at her, the accused
ran away by giving a life threat.
17. In order to substantiate the said allegation of the
prosecution, the complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and
her mother is examined as P.W.2.
18. The admissions obtained in the cross-examination
clearly shows that for the first time, the accused has been
spotted by the complainant when he was 15 feet away from the
alleged place of incident.
19. P.W.2 has clearly and categorically admitted that
she is not an eye witness to the incident and she arrived on the
spot after hearing the hue and cry raised by the complainant.
The statement given by P.W.2 before the police makes it clear
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
that she is an eye witness to the incident. Admissions of P.W.2
before the Court clearly shows that she is not an eye witness to
the incident. Further, accused is known to the complainant
from a very long time as accused is a neighbor.
20. Further, the suggestions goes to show that there
are serious disputes between the complainant and the accused
party and the alleged incident has taken place in a public road.
It is also admitted by the prosecution witnesses that there will
be a movement of public till up to 8.30 p.m. and the place of
incident is a busy place.
21. Under such circumstances, apart from the
complainant and her mother, somebody else would have
witnessed the incident and there is no eye witness other than
the mother of the complainant.
22. Even according to the material on record, P.W.2 not
being an eye witness to the incident, her evidence cannot be
taken as gospel truth insofar as advancing the case of the
prosecution.
23. Further, in the absence of any corroboration that
too having regard to the admissions obtained in the cross-
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
examination of P.W.1, learned Judge disbelieved the case of the
prosecution that it is highly improbable that the accused would
have tried to commit the offence of outraging the modesty of
the complainant and also assaulted the complainant.
24. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the
material evidence on record, affirmed the finding recorded by
the learned Trial Judge to the effect that the prosecution has
not able to successfully establish the charges leveled against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. When two Courts have concurrently recorded a
finding that the prosecution has not been able to establish the
case of the prosecution, this Court, that too, in the revisional
jurisdiction, cannot revisit to the factual aspects of the matter
in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of learned High
Court Government Pleader in upsetting the finding recorded by
both the Courts as is rightly contended by learned Amicus
Curie.
26. Further, the order of acquittal recorded by a duly
constituted Court after due trial, reinforces the innocence of the
accused which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Therefore, not only double, it is the triple innocence that has
NC: 2024:KHC:17602
been invested in the accused with regard to the case which
requires to be interfered by this Court only in a exceptional
circumstances if there is a material irregularity in appreciating
the case of the prosecution.
27. No such material irregularity is found from the
records. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the matter does not require to be
admitted for further consideration.
28. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Admission declined.
ii. Revision petition is dismissed.
iii. The services rendered by learned amicus
curie is placed on record with appreciation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
CT: BHK
