Karnataka High Court
Narayana vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYANA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
KOTTAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADIBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY IJOOR POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. J. NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA,
R/AT KOTTAGARA HALLI,
MADABAL HOBLI-561 201
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
PRESENT ADDRESS:
SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
OFFICE OF BLOCK EDUCATION
SOUTH ZONE-2
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
CRL.RP No. 1358 of 2021
POORNAIAH CHOULTRY BUILDING
NEAR UPPARPET POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE BY
HASMATH PASHA & ASSOCIATES FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.09.2016 PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO.3/2014 BY THE
LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED
FROM THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC
AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 03.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, RAMANAGARA IN
C.C.NO.20/2006 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE PRESENT
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for
respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. The factual matrix of case of the prosecution before
the Trial Court based on the complaint given by the revision
petitioner is that a case is registered, wherein an allegation is
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
made that on 07.11.2005, C.W.1 came to the Court of Civil
Judge and JMFC, Ramanagaram to give evidence in
C.C.No.17/1996 and after giving evidence at 3.45 p.m., when
he was going outside the Court near Forest Office, the accused
intimidated the complainant to end his life by causing accident
with a car, since he had given evidence against the accused.
Therefore, complaint was given by C.W.1 and invoked offence
under Section 506 IPC, investigated the matter and filed the
charge-sheet.
3. The statement of accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accused denied the charges. Hence,
the prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5, P.W.1
is the complainant, P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses and P.Ws.4
and 5 are the Investigating Officer, who have received the
complaint and investigated the matter and filed the charge-
sheet.
4. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 and also P.Ws.4 and 5, P.W.3 is an eye witness,
who turned hostile, comes to the conclusion that there is a
delay in lodging the complaint and complaint was given on the
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
next date and also comes to the conclusion that there were
dispute between them from 1979 onwards and cases were
registered. The Trial Court in paragraph No.21 comes to the
conclusion, if that were be the fact, the complainant would
have immediately lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional
police. In this case, there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the
complaint and the same affects the case of the prosecution. If
the threat were to be so alarming of notice of any subsequent
danger, such a long period of 9 years would not have lost
without any such serious consequences and also comes to the
conclusion that though P.W.1 was eye witness to the incident,
at the first instance, he says that he does not know the reason
for alleged threat and later the complainant says that he gave
the evidence before the Court against the accused and hence,
the alleged threat was made. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have
deposed that they are relatives with each other, the
genealogical tree produced by the accused states that P.W.2 is
cousin of P.W.1. Further, P.W.2 has deposed that he does not
know either the name of his grand-father or grand-mother
which cannot be believed in the ordinary course.This raises
some suspicion about the trustworthiness of P.W.2. Hence not
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and acquitted the
respondent/accused.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.3/2014. The First
Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4
and 5, in paragraph No.19 comes to the conclusion that delay is
not explained by the prosecution and hence, the same is fatal
to the case of prosecution. However, the State has contended
that delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the case of
the prosecution and on that basis, the accused cannot be
acquitted. This contention of the State is in accordance with
settled proposition of law. Therefore, delay cannot be made as
a ground for the acquittal of the accused. From careful
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, this Court is of the opinion that, mere uttering of words
is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the offence
punishable under Section 506 IPC. Hence, the Trial Court has
appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record in proper perspective and comes to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to prove the case. Hence, confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order of
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
the Trial Court and confirmation of the First Appellate Court,
the present revision petition is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of learned counsel for the
revision petitioner in this petition is that both the Courts failed
to take into consideration the explanation given by P.W.1 for
delay in filing the complaint in his evidence, but said
explanation is not at all discussed or relied upon, which has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the respondent No.2/accused was the
accused in the cases filed by the appellant and accused has
criminally intimidated the appellant/complainant is the sound
reason for the offence committed by the accused. Learned
counsel would vehemently contend that evidence of P.W.1 has
been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, but both the
Courts discarded the evidence of P.W.2, merely because he is a
relative of P.W.1, placing reliance on a self-serving genealogical
tree produced by the accused. Hence, very approach of both
the Courts is erroneous and it requires interference.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/accused would contend that both the Courts have taken
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
note of the material on record and the fact that there is a
dispute between both the accused and C.W.1 from 1979
onwards is not disputed and cases are also registered is not
disputed and motive is alleged dispute between both of them.
It is the specific case that there was a case and C.W.1 went
and gave evidence and while returning, he was subjected to
threat. Though P.W.2 was examined, at the first instance, he
has given the evidence that he is not aware of the same, but
later he has given the evidence that, since the complainant
gave the evidence against the accused, the alleged threat was
caused. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 evidence is an
improvement and not credible. Apart from that, he is a relative
of P.W.1 and his evidence is considered by the Trial Court while
acquitting the accused and confirmed by the First Appellate
Court.
8. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would
contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 were present at the time of incident
and their evidence corroborates with each other and the
complainant has not given the complaint immediately after the
incident and complaint was given on the next day and though
the same is not an inordinate delay and explanation is also not
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
given for the delay and both the Courts have committed an
error and it requires interference.
9. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned
HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and also taking note of the material on record,
the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
passing an order of acquittal and the First Appellate
Court committed an error in confirming the same
and the reasoning given by both the Courts suffers
from its legality and correctness and whether it
requires interference by exercising revisional
jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i)
10. Having heard learned for respective parties and also
on perusal of material on record, it is not in dispute that
petitioner has filed the complaint before the respondent No.1-
Police and case has been registered for the offence under
Section 506 IPC. It is also the case of the complainant that,
when he had returned from the Court, after giving evidence, he
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
was threatened by the accused that he is going to take away
his life and at that time, P.W.2 was present along with him and
the same was witnessed by him. It is also not in dispute that
there was delay of one day in lodging the complaint, since the
incident has taken place on the previous day and complaint was
given next day evening and having taken note of complaint at
Ex.P1, the delay has not been explained, but only reason is
stated that he has given the complaint belatedly, but no reason
for what made to give the complaint with delay of more than 24
hours, no reason is assigned and only narrated the incident
stating that there is delay of 24 hours.
11. No doubt, both the Courts have taken note of the
delay in lodging the complaint, it is also important to note that
P.W.1categorically admits that there is a dispute betweenthe
accused and the complainant from 1979 onwards. It is also not
in dispute that case was filed against the respondent-accused
and at the first instance, he was convicted and thereafter, the
same was challenged and matter was also remanded to the
Trial Court and in view of remanding the matter, he went and
gave the evidence on the previous day of the case. According
to P.W.1, the witness P.W.2 was very much present and P.W.2
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
is friend of P.W.1. It is also important to note that when he
was examined, he said that he is not aware of the reason for
causing threat, but immediately he stated that because the
complainant gave the evidence against the accused, life threat
was caused. It is also important to note that P.W.2 was
present along with P.W.1 and what prevented him from giving
the complaint on the very same day, no explanation, since
P.W.2 is also a person having the knowledge of Court affairs
and also lodging of complaint, immediately he would have gone
to the station, when he was threatened on account of giving
the evidence before Court, but not lodged the complaint. Apart
from that, when P.W.2 noticed causing of incident, at the first
instance, he denies, but immediately he says that because the
complainant gave the evidence, he was threatened. When such
being the case, taking note of rivalry between both of them,
benefit of doubt is given in favour of respondent No.2-accused.
The reasons are also stated in paragraph No.21 of the
judgment and also discussed in paragraph No.22 and also
taken note of sworn testimony of P.W.1 and he has admitted
that he has given several representations to the various
authorities of Education Department, wherein the accused is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
working to take action against the accused which give raises
smell of vengeance from the side of the complainant. In such
circumstances, in this case, the testimony of P.W.1 without
further substantive and corroborative evidence cannot be
considered sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
12. The Trial Court also in paragraph No.23 observed
that P.W.2 is relative to P.W.1 and at the first instance, when
he gave the evidence, he says that he did not know the reason
for alleged threat. But, immediately again he says the reason
for causing threat and these factors were taken note by the
Trial Court and First Appellate Courtalso.Having considered the
delay,the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the
delay is not explained by the prosecution and hence, the same
is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Court also discussed
the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and observed that
the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is in accordance with the
materials placed on record. However, it is the duty of the Court
to consider as to whether the allegations made in the complaint
do fall within the purview of the offence punishable under
Section 506 IPC and ingredients of Section 506 IPC is taken
note of and comes to the conclusion that mere uttering of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4286
words is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the offence
punishable under Section 506 IPC. When such being the
material on record, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in considering the
material on record and I do not find any perversity in the
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The
revisional Court can exercise the powers, if the Court comes to
the conclusion that the finding of the Trial Court is not legal.
But, having considered the material on record, benefit of doubt
is extended in favour of the accused, since there was a rivalry
between both C.W.1 and accused from 1979 and also taken
note of vengeance between both of them. When such being
the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
