Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Hanamant S/O Shankarappa Harijan on 7 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
CRL.RP No.200011 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200011 OF 2017
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH DEVAR HIPPARAGI POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE,
ADDITITONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP)
AND:
HANAMANT S/O SHANKARAPPA HARIJAN,
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R R/O. UTNAL, TQ. BASAVAN BAGEWADI.
TENIHALLI
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M AND
KARNATAKA SRI PRASANNA KUMAR M.Y., ADVOCATES)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED:16.08.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.25/2015. AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
JMFC COURT, SINDAGI, IN C.C.NO.143/2013 AND
CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
CRL.RP No.200011 of 2017
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
This revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 of Cr.P.C. is filed assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,
Vijayapur (for short 'Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal
No.25/2015 dated 16.08.2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent herein was charge sheeted for the
offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 323, 354,
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980
(for short 'IPC') along with two others. Accused Nos.1 to 3
were tried for the charge sheeted offences before the
jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.143/2013. In
the said case, the learned Magistrate by judgment and
order dated 3.05.2015 convicted accused No.1 for the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC while
acquitting him for other charge sheeted offences. Learned
Magistrate had acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the
offences for which they were charge sheeted.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate
convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month, accused No.1 had
filed Criminal Appeal No.25/2015 before the Court of
Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, which was allowed by
the Appellate Court vide impugned Judgment and order
dated 16.08.2016. Assailing the same, the State is
before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the State submits that the Appellate Court
has erred in extending the benefit of acquittal as against
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
accused No.1 only for the reason that accused Nos.2 and 3
were acquitted by the Trial Court. She submits that
evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 has not been properly
appreciated by the Appellate Court, which has resulted in
passing of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Accordingly, she prays to allow the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that Appellate Court has rightly acquitted accused
No.1 since the allegations made by all the witnesses
against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are similar. He submits
that there are no specific allegations as against accused
No.1 and therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in
acquitting accused No.1. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the revision petition.
7. Prosecution to substantiate the allegations
made against accused persons had examined ten
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 before the Trial Court and had
got marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
the defence, no documents were marked nor was any
defence evidence led.
8. PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 are the witnesses, who
have made allegations as against accused persons. Ex.P1
is the copy of the first information submitted by PW.1. In
Ex.P1, it is stated that PW.1 was ill-treated in her
matrimonial house for the reason that she did not know
cooking and she was black in colour. It is also alleged that
she was ill-treated in her matrimonial house for giving
birth to two girl babies. However, during the course of
deposition, PW.1 has not made any allegation against
accused persons that she was being ill-treated in the
matrimonial house for the reason that she had given birth
to two girl babies. On the other hand, perusal of the
deposition of PW.1 would go to show that she has made
omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and
specific overt-act, which would attract the alleged offence
under Section 498A of IPC as against accused No.1 is not
made by her. Even PW.2 and PW.5 have not made any
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
specific allegation as against accused No.1, which would
attract the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
Allegations made by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 as against all
the accused persons are omnibus in nature.
9. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter,
the learned Magistrate had acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3
but had convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC, while he was acquitted for the
other charge sheeted offences. Undisputedly, the
judgment and order of acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3
has not been questioned by the State or by the de-facto
complainant/PW1. The said judgment and order of
acquittal passed in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 has
attained finality.
10. The Appellate Court having appreciated this
aspect of the matter has held that the Trial Court was not
justified in convicting accused No.1 while acquitting
accused Nos.2 and 3 since the allegations made by the
witnesses i.e., PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 as against the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
accused persons were common and no specific allegations
are made against accused No.1, which would attract the
alleged offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In
addition to the same, it is also noticed that independent
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not
supported the case of the prosecution and they were
treated as hostile witnesses. Nothing material has been
elicited from the mouth of these hostile witnesses even
though they were cross-examined by the Public
Prosecutor.
11. The Appellate Court also has noticed that there
is an allegation made against accused No.1 that he had
married another lady after PW.1 was sent out of the
matrimonial house. Therefore, it appears that PW.1 had
taken shelter in her parents house and she had
approached the police only after accused No.1 had
allegedly contracted another marriage. Therefore, it is
apparent that there is a delay in approaching the police
and no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:56
first informant for the same. The Appellate Court having
taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter,
has acquitted accused No.1, whereas, the Trial Court has
convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC though perusal of the depositions of
the witnesses will go to show that common allegations are
made against all the accused persons.
12. Under the circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that the Appellate Court was fully
justified in setting aside the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.143/2013 dated 30.05.2015 and acquitting
accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section
498A of IPC. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to
entertain this revision position. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
