Karnataka High Court

Mr Mahammed Mustafa vs State By Arehalli Police on 20 November, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                        -1-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:47244
                                                 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2022




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 585 OF 2022
            BETWEEN:

            1.    MR. MAHAMMED MUSTAFA
                  S/O ABBAS D R,
                  AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                  R/AT BAKRVALLI VILLAGE,
                  AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
                  HASSAN DISTRICT - 573101

            2.    MR. MAHAMMED
                  S/O ABBAS D R,
                  AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                  R/AT BAKRAVALLI VILLAGE,
                  AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
                  HASSAN DISTRICT - 573101

            3.    MR. ABDUL LATHIF
                  S/O ABBAS D R,
                  AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by         R/AT BAKRAVALLI VILALGE
MALATESH          AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
KC                HASSAN DISTRICT - 573101
Location:                                                ...PETITIONERS
HIGH
COURT OF    (BY SRI. JAYAKUMARA P P., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
            AND:

            1.    STATE BY AREHALLI POLICE
                  REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  BANGALORE 560001
                                                         ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
                                      -2-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:47244
                                                 CRL.RP No. 585 of 2022




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2019, PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELURU IN CRIMINAL CASE No.
584/2016, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                            ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Jayakumar P.P., learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Accused persons who are convicted in

C.C.No.584/2016, on the file Civil Judge and JMFC., Beluru, for

the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 and 341

r/w Section 34 IPC, confirmed in Crl.A.No.129/2019, on the file

of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, are the

revision petitioners.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of

the revision petition are as under:

A Complaint came to lodged with Arehalli Police, Hassan

District by the complainant/injured alleging that on 22.12.2015

at about 10.30 p.m., in Bakravalli village, when the

complainant had been to Bhadriya Juma Maszid and while

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

returning, when he passed through the road opposite to the

houses of Habibvur Rehman and Ashraf, accused persons

chased the complainant and abused him in filthy language and

assaulted him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries

on the left knee region and there was an abrasion in the back.

Quarrel was pacified and he was shifted to the hospital.

4. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant,

Arehalli police registered the case and investigated the matter

and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the

aforesaid offences.

5. Presence of the accused persons was secured and

plea was recorded. Accused persons pleaded not guilty.

Therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, in

all nine witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and five

documents were placed on record as Exs.P.1 to P.5.

7. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 is the

complainant-injured. Pancha witnesses, Doctor who issued the

wound certificate-Ex.P.3 and two other circumstantial witnesses

and Investigating Agency are examined as P.Ws.2 to 9.

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

8. Among the documents, Ex.P.1 is the complaint,

Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate,

Ex.P.4 is the memo, Ex.P.5 is the First information report.

9. Detailed cross-examination of prosecution witnesses

did not yield any positive materials so as to disbelieve the case

of the prosecution.

10. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned

Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement, wherein

accused has denied all the incriminatory materials and they did

not place their version about the incident in writing as is

contemplated under Section 313 (4) Cr.P.C., nor placed any

defence evidence.

11. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned

Trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and on cumulative

analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record,

convicted the accused persons as under:

ಆ ೕಶ

"DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 504 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 3 wAUÀ¼À PÁ¯Á ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.1,000-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀªÁV vÀÄA§vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

zÀAqÀ vÀÄA§®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀeÉ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 324 ¸ÀºÀªÁZÀPÀ 34 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 6 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.2,000-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀªÁV vÀÄA§vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É zÀAqÀ vÀÄA§®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀeÉ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 506 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 3 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.500-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀªÁV vÀÄA§vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É zÀAqÀ vÀÄA§®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀeÉ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 341 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 3 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.500-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀAqÀªÁV vÀÄA§vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É zÀAqÀ vÀÄA§®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÁzÁ ¸ÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀeÉ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É zÀAqÀzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¹zÀÝ°è UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄªÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtzÀ°è ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 50 gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J¯Áè ²PÉëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MmÁÖV C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

wÃ¦ð£À £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦vÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQÃ®jUÉ GavÀªÁV ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

12. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an

appeal before the District Court, Hassan in Crl.A.No.129/2019.

13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the parties in detail and on re-

appreciation of the material evidence on record by judgment

dated 25.03.2022 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the

order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial

Judge.

14. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused

persons are before this Court.

15. Sri Jayakumar P.P., learned counsel for the revision

petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition

vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly

appreciated the material evidence on record and time of

incident being 10.30 in the night, the evidence as is deposed

by P.W.1 is highly improper and therefore, recording of order of

conviction by both the Courts is resulted in miscarriage of

justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

16. He further argued that in the event this Court

upholding the order of conviction, this Court may consider

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

imprisonment period of petitioner No.2 in custody and suitable

orders may be passed with regard to the sentence.

17. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

opposes the revision grounds including the alternate

submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner.

Complainant who is present before the Court, instructs the

learned High Court Government Pleader in opposing the

alternate submissions.

18. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

19. On such perusal of the material on record, following

points would arise for consideration:

1) Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing all

the ingredients to attract the aforesaid offences?

2) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal

infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference?

3) Whether the sentence is excessive?

4) What order?

20. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: In the case on

hand, complainant is acquainted with the accused persons as

they belonged to same community. In respect of the

grampanchayath elections that had taken place about six

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

months earlier to the incident, there was some enmity between

the complainant and the accused.

21. Taking advantage of the precarious situation with

which the complainant was placed as on date of incident,

accused persons together appeared on the road and restrained

the free movement of the complainant and abused him in filthy

language and assaulted him is the case that has been

propounded by the prosecution.

22. To establish the same, oral evidence of complainant

coupled with the documentary evidence namely, the wound

certificate and oral testimony of Doctor is primarily relied upon

by the prosecution.

23. The spot mahazar corroborates the prosecution

case. Accused persons failed to offer their version about the

incident at the time of recording the accused statement.

24. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter,

learned Trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced

them as referred to supra.

25. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after re-

appreciation of the material on record has recorded a

categorical finding that the learned Trial Judge has bestowed

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

his attention to the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum

in paragraph Nos.26 to 31 of the impugned judgment.

26. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also took

into consideration one of the cardinal principles of criminal

justice system that the testimony of the injured eye witnesses

should be kept on the higher pedestal while appreciating the

oral evidence of the injured.

27. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion

that having regard to the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction, this Court cannot revisit into the facts of the case

so as to annul the finding of conviction recorded by both the

Courts. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative

and point No.2 in the Negative.

28. Regarding Point No.3: The learned Trial

Magistrate has awarded the fine and imprisonment as referred

to supra. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

sought for showing leniency by enhancing the fine amount.

Taking note of the fact that the injury mentioned in Ex.P.3 and

the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the accused persons are

entitled for probation.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

29. However, at this distance of time, if the report is

called from the probation officer, the same would be result in

futile exercise.

30. Admittedly, there is no complaint against the

accused persons post incident in the present case.

31. Taking note of the same and the punishment of

imprisonment prescribed under Section 324 of IPC being

alternative in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion

that enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each

of the accused and setting aside the imprisonment ordered by

the learned Trial Magistrate would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.

32. Regarding point No.4: In view of findings on

point Nos.1 to 3, following order is passed.

ORDER

(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused

persons for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 504, 114, 324 and 506 IPC, the

sentence ordered by the learned Trial

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47244

Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate

Court is modified as under:

(a) Each of the accused persons are directed

to pay enhanced fine of Rs.25,000/- on or

before 31.12.2024, failing which, they

shall undergo simple imprisonment as

ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate.

(b) The period of imprisonment ordered by the

learned Trial Magistrate is hereby set aside

subject to the enhanced payment of fine

amount as referred to supra.