Karnataka High Court
Raghu vs State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1432 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHU
S/O RAJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT SAGANIPURA VILLAGE,
CHIKMAGALURU TALUK-571072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKMAGALURU P.S.,CHIKMAGALUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE
Digitally signed STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMGALURU IN C.C.NO.126/2013
DATED 15.07.2014 AND THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKAMGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.87/2014 DATED 26.07.2016 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before
the Trial Court that on 24.10.2012 at 8.30 a.m., within the
jurisdiction of Chikkamangaluru Police Station accused
gave the chit to CW2 and hence CW1 gave the complaint
that he was forcing her to love him and hence invoked the
offence punishable under Section 341 and invoked Section
504 for using a filthy language and invoked Section 506
for causing of threat and invoked Section 509 for asking
her to make a phone call and demoralized her. In order to
prove the case of prosecution, father of the girl has been
examined as PW1, and PW2 is Mahazar witness, PW3 is
spot mahazar witness and PW4 is the victim and PW5 is
the grand father of the victim and PW6 is the I.O and
relying upon this evidence and also the document Ex.P1 to
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
Ex.P6, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 341, 504, 506 and 509
of IPC and the same is challenged before the First
Appellate Court in the Crl.A.No.87/2014. The First
Appellate Court having considered the material on record,
re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court.
3. The main contention of the petitioner's counsel
before this Court is that both the Courts fails to analyze
the legal evidence available on record and there is no eye
witnesses to the alleged offences and no independent
witnesses. The PW1 and PW2 are the parents and I.O has
not conducted proper investigation and no seizure of Ex.P2
that is alleged letter and Ex.P5 also not the authenticated
document and the same is in respect of call details. The
I.O also not sent the Ex.P2 to the FSL for confirming the
hand writing of the accused and even inspite of all these
lacunas in the prosecution, Trial Court committed an error
in convicting the petitioner. The First Appellate Court also
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
not applied its mind and confirmed the same and it
requires interference of this Court.
4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for
respondent-State would contend that PW4 evidence is
very clear with regard to the wrongful restraint and also
abusing her and causing life threat demoralizing the PW4
and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW4 to
disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution and so also the
PW1 and PW2 spoken about the very conduct of the
petitioner and I.O also conducted the investigation. The
Ex.P5 also discloses the call made by the petitioner. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that letter which
was given by the petitioner is also marked as Ex.P2 and all
these materials have been considered by the Trial Court
and also the First Appellate Court. Hence, it does not
requires any interference.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for revision
petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent
and also reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as First
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
Appellate Court the point that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
1) Whether the Courts below have committed
an error in convicting and sentencing the
petitioner in the absence of any legal
evidence and whether it requires
interference of this Court to exercise the
revisional jurisdiction?
2) What Order?
6. Having heard the counsels for respective parties
and also on perusal of material available on record, the
case of the prosecution that on particular date the
petitioner went and gave the letter marked at Ex.P2 and
also he used to make call and insisting her to call him and
harassing her, abused her and also caused life threat and
committed the offences. The prosecution mainly relies
upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The witnesses PW1
and PW2 are the parents of the victim girl and victim also
examined as PW4 and it is the case of the PW3 that Police
have conducted the mahazar and PW5 is the grand father
and identified the accused that he has seen the accused
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
and he had threatened the PW4 if she brings to the notice
of anyone about the act of the accused that he would pour
the acid. The main witness is PW4 and no doubt she was
aged about 14 years and she says that the accused was
coming in the auto rickshaw along with his friends and
makes an attempt to talk to her and also cause the threat
that he would send the boys and caused life threat to
parents. On perusal of the evidence of PW4 is the victim
and she claims that she brought to the notice of this
conduct of the accused to the parents and also the grand
father. It is suggested that he used supply the milk and
she admits that while giving the said chit, he came alone
in the auto rickshaw and the same was witnessed by the
neighbor of grand father Siddappa and on perusal of
evidence of Siddappa, he is only mahazar witness and he
has not spoken anything about he has witnessed the
incident of giving of chit to the victim girl.
7. It is also important to note that Ex.P2 is marked
and the same is not seized by drawing any mahazar and
the same is admitted by PW6, however, the said document
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
is marked. In the cross-examination of the PW6-I.O, he
categorically says that he had obtained the call list from
the S.P office and there is no any endorsement or any
authentication that the same was obtained from the S.P
office and also not taken any details of mobile which was
used for making the call and also he did not send the
Ex.P2 for handwriting expert for confirming the
handwriting, whether it belongs to the accused and there
are lapses on the part of the investigation conducting the
case and nothing was done by the PW6-I.O in order to
bring home of this petitioner and only on the oral evidence
of PW1 and PW2 who are the interested witnesses that is
PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the PW4 and so also PW3
is not an eye witness and there is no eye witnesses though
prosecution relies upon the PW5 who is the grand father
and PW1, PW2 and PW5 are the relative witnesses and
though PW3 is examined he is not the eye witness and he
is only mahazar witness. I have already pointed out that
victim though says that incident of giving chit was
witnessed by PW3 and he has not spoken anything about
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
the same. The PW5 also speaks about causing of threat.
The PW5 also admits that at the time of giving of the said
chit by the accused to the grand daughter, he did not
witness any of the persons at the spot and also he did not
make any complaint on the very same day and also he
admits that Police Station is at the distance of 2 Kms and
these are the evidence and admissions are also not
considered by the Trial Court and Trial Court fails to
appreciate the evidence of PW4 and PW6 in a proper
perspective. The PW6 not done anything except
registration of the case. When there is no legal evidence
before the Court, both the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of
the PW4 and PW6 and also the document Ex.P2 as well as
Ex.P5 are not the authenticated document and Trial Court
without any authentication also marked the document of
Ex.P5 and hence committed an error in convicting and
sentencing and also confirming the same by the First
Appellate Court and when there is no legal evidence before
the Court, the Court can exercise the revisional powers
NC: 2025:KHC:5946
and when the order suffers from legality and correctness,
Court can interfere. Hence, I answer point as 'Affirmative'.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order of the Trial
Court in C.C.No.126/2013 dated 15.07.2014
and First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.87/2014
dated 26.07.2016 is set-aside and petitioner is
acquitted.
iii) Bail bonds are cancelled and if any
fine amount is deposited, ordered to return the
same in favour of the revision petitioner on
proper identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
