Karnataka High Court

Smt Shruthi vs State Of Karnataka By on 27 June, 2025

                                                     -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:22766
                                                            CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                               DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                            CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 660 OF 2018
                                     (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SMT. SHRUTHI
                            W/O YOGARAJ, AGE: 25 YEARS,

                      2.    SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
                            W/O THIMMAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS,

                      3.    SMT KARIYAMMA
                            W/O LATE OBANNA, AGE: 77 YEARS,

                            PETITIONER 1 TO 3 ARE
                            AGRICULTURAL LABORS AND
                            ALL ARE R/O
                            MUDDAPURA HOSAHATTY VILLAGE,
                            TURUVANUR HOBLI,
                            CHITRADURGA TQ. & DISTRICT-577517.
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH
                      (BY SRI. B. O. CHANDRA SHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


                      AND:

                      STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
                      TURUVANURU POLICE,
                      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
                      REPRESNETED BY ITS
                      PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      BANGALORE-560001.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP.)
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:22766
                                       CRL.RP No. 660 of 2018


HC-KAR




      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY JUDGMENT DATED
07.10.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.995/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA AND
THE     JUDGMENT      DATED     03.05.2018   PASSED    IN
CRL.A.NO.74/2017 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                         ORAL ORDER

Revision petitioners/accused have preferred this revision

petition against the Judgment of conviction and order and

sentence passed by III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Chitradurga in CC No.995 of 2015 dated 07th October 2017,

which is confirmed by the I Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2017 dated 03rd

May 2018.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that,

Turuvanuru police submitted charge-sheet against accused for

the offence punishable and Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, 504

and 506, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by

the prosecution that on 29th November 2014 at about 7.00 am

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

PW1, after washing vessels in front of the house and when she

was proceeding to go inside the house with washed vessels, at

that time, accused No.1 scolded her in vulgar language stating

that PW1 should not go in front of their house and held her tuft

and pushed her to the ground. Accused No.2 picked up the

stick lying there and assaulted on left side of her head, because

of which she sustained internal injuries. All the accused

dragged her, assaulted on her back, chest, on her hands and

legs. At that time, PW5 came and pacified them. Thereafter,

accused told PW1 that they have spared her that day and if

they see her crossing their house next time, they would kill her.

Thus, the accused have committed the alleged offences.

3. After filing of charge-sheet, case was registered in CC

No.995 of 2015. Upon receipt of summons, accused appeared

before the trial Court and were enlarged on bail. Having heard

the arguments on charges, the trial Court framed charges for

commission of offence, punishable and Sections 323, 324, 341,

354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The

same was read over to the accused in the language known to

them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

4. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, eight

witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 8 and marked four

documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. On closure of prosecution

side, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied

all the evidences appearing against them, but have not chosen

to adduce any evidence on their behalf. The Hospital memo is

marked as Exhibit D1 and one stick marked as MO1.

5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial

Court convicted the accused for commission of offence

punishable under Sections, 323, 324, 341, 354, 504 and 506,

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and passed order on

sentence. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction

and order of sentence, accused preferred appeal before the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Criminal

Appeal No.74 of 2017, which came to be dismissed by

Judgment dated 3rd May 2018. Being aggrieved by the

Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the

trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, the

accused have preferred the present revision petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

6. Sri B.O. Chandrashekar learned Counsel appearing for

the revision petitioners would submit that both the Courts

below have not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence

placed it before it in its proper perspective. He would submit

that Exhibit P3 is the wound certificate issued by PW6 Doctor

wherein it is mentioned that only finger marks could be seen on

the right side cheek of PW1. Though the wound certificate

indicates that PW1 has complained pain in her chest and on the

left side of her head, however, the wound certificate does not

indicate any injury on the chest or on the head of PW1. Having

regard to oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the

effect that the accused have pushed PW1 to the ground,

dragged her and assaulted on her back, stomach, chest, and

left side of her head, more injuries should have been inflicted

on PW1. He would submit that there is an inordinate and

unexplained delay in filing the complaint. It is the case of the

prosecution that the alleged incident took place at 7.00 am on

29th November, 2014, but the complaint came to be registered

on 30th November, 2014 at 7.00 pm. The only reason assigned

by the PW1 for the delay is that, she was exhausted.

However, in the wound certificate-Exhibit P3, there is no

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

indication that the complainant was not in a position to speak.

All the witnesses are interested and related witnesses and their

testimony cannot be believed without any supporting evidence.

The author of the complaint who has recorded the statement of

PW1 is not cited as witness and not examined by the

prosecution. Absolutely there are no materials to constitute

the alleged offences. However, both the Courts have

committed an error in passing impugned judgment which is not

sustainable in the eye of law and on all these grounds sought to

allow the revision petition.

7. As against this, Sri M.R. Patil, the learned High Court

Government Pleader would submit that absolutely, they are no

materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction

and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is

confirmed by the appellate Court and accordingly, sought for

dismissal of the revision petition.

8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the point

that would arise for consideration is whether the impugned

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate Court, requires

interference in this Revision Petition?

9. I have examined the material placed before this Court.

The genesis of the case is the complaint filed by PW1-

Boramma.     The same reads as under:


                                         ºÉÃ½PÉ

"¨ÉÆÃgÀªÀÄä UÀAqÀ ²ªÀPÄÀ ªÀiÁgï, 21 ªÀµÀð, £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ d£ÁAUÀ, ºÉÆ®ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸À, ªÀÄÄzÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀnÖ UÁæªÄÀ , avÀæzÄÀ UÀð (vÁ) & (f), ªÉÆ.£ÀA. 9535685723.

Date: 30-11-2014 £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:

29-11-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 7.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄÄ¸ÀÄgÉ ¥ÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆ¼ÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À vÀAVAiÀiÁzÀ ±ÀÈw, vÀAzÉ wªÀÄätÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä UÀAqÀ wªÀÄätÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀÈwAiÀÄªÀgÀ CfÓAiÀiÁzÀ PÀjAiÀÄªÀÄä¼ÄÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÄÀ , DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄ¸ÀÄgÉ ¥ÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÉÆ¼ÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¯ÉAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÄÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß CqÀØUÀnÖzÀªÀgÉÃ CzÀgÀ°è ±ÀÈwAiÀÄÆ £À£ÀUÉ K£ÉÃ ¨ÉÆÃ¸ÀÄr, ºÀ¯ÁÌ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, «ÄAqÀæUÁ¼É ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸Áj ºÉÃ¼ÉÆÃzÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄÄAzÉ NqÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ, £ÀªÄÀ UÉ ªÀÄÄR vÉÆÃj¸À¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀgÆ À ºÁUÉAiÉÄÃ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀªÀgÉÃ ±ÀÈw £À£ßÀ ªÀÄÄAUÀÆzÀ®£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr £É®PÉÌ PÉqÀ«PÉÆAqÀ¼ÀÄ, DUÀ £À£ßÀ CvÉÛ ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä¼ÀÄ C°èAiÉÄÃ ©¢ÝzÀÝ MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃ°¤AzÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ JqÀ¨Ás UÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ M¼À¥ÉlÄÖ ªÀiÁrzÀ¼ÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ ±ÀÈwAiÀÄ CfÓ PÀjAiÀÄªÀÄä, ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀÈw ªÀÄÆªÀgÄÀ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ßÀ £ÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ, JzÉUÉ, ¨É¤ßUÉ, PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥m É ÁÖUÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉÃ K£ÉÃ ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸Áj ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÆ, ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÆ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ E°èAiÉÄÃ £ÀªÄÀ ä ªÀÄÄAzÉ NqÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ C£ÉÃPÀ ¸Áj zÁjAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÁUÀ §gÀÄªÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ £ÉÆÃªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊzÁrzÀgÀÄ DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä¤zÉÝ£ÀÄ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄªÁUÀ eÉÆÃgÁV CAiÉÆåÃ ¸ÀvÉÛ PÁ¥Ár CAvÀ PÀÆVPÉÆAqÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Àà,

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

vÀAzÉ ¤AUÀ¥Àà EªÀgÄÀ §AzÀÄ dUÀ¼À ©r¹zÀgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ±ÀÈw, ¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä, PÀjAiÀÄªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÄÀ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÁUÀ ºÉÆÃUÉ ¨ÉÆÃ¸ÀÄr F ¢£À §zÀÄQPÉÆAqÉ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¸Áj ¹UÀÄ ¤£Àß ¥Áæt vÉUÉAiÀÄzÉ ©qÀÄªÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DUÀ £À£ßÀ ªÀiÁªÀ ±ÀgÀt¥Àà£ÄÀ 108 DA§Ä¯É£ïìUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà£ÉÆA¢UÉ aQvÉìUÉAzÀÄ avÀæzÄÀ UÀð f¯Áè¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉ vÀAzÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ §ºÀ¼À ¸ÀÄ¸ÁÛVzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-11-2014 gÀAzÀÄ vÀqÀªÁV «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ F ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F £À£Àß ºÉÃ½PÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

10. PW1-Boramma, has reiterated the averments made

in the complaint.

11. PWs2-Navin Kumar & PW3-Manjunath have deposed

as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Exhibit P2.

12. PW4-Kariyamma, mother of the complainant PW1,

has deposed in her evidence as to the assault made by the

accused to her daughter.

13. PW5-Sharanappa is the relative of the complainant,

who has deposed as to the assault made by the accused.

14. PW6-Dr. H. Pavitra, has deposed as to the

examination of the injured and also issuance of wound

certificate-Exhibit P3.

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

15. PW7-Manjunath, Investigating officer, has deposed

as to the investigation conducted by him.

16. PW8-Chandranna, father of the complainant, is a

hearsay witness.

17. According to the case of the prosecution, incident

took place on 29th November 2014 at 7.00 am, and the

complaint came to be filed on 30th November 2014 at 7.00 pm.

The First Information Report-Exhibit P4 was submitted to the

Court on 01st December 2014 at 10.00 am. In Exhibit P4-FIR,

at column 12, the signature of the complainant has not been

obtained. In column No.13, "date and time of dispatch to the

Court" is shown as 30th November, 2014 at 19.40 hours, but

the learned Magistrate has endorsed that he has received the

First Information Report and complaint through PC No.810 of

Town Police Station, at 10.00 am on 01st December, 2014.

The delay in filing the complaint and the delay in dispatching

the First Information Report to the Court, has not been

explained by the prosecution.

18. Exhibit P3 is the wound certificate of Boramma,

which reveals that she was taken to the District Hospital

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

Chitradurga on 29th November, 2014 and the time is not

mentioned therein. PW6 the Medical Officer has found the

following injuries on the injured:

"finger mark seen on right side of face complaint - chest pain pain over left side of head."

19. Doctor has opined that the injuries are simple in

nature. The name of the accused and the weapon used for

alleged commission of offence has not been disclosed. PW6

has not explained anything as to the non-mentioning of the

name of the accused who have assaulted PW1 and also the

weapons used by the accused for assault. Even the place of

crime is not shown in the wound certificate.

20. A careful scrutiny of the wound certificate-Exhibit P3

makes it clear that PW1 has suffered only finger marks on her

right cheek. Except this, she has not sustained any injury and

was examined by Doctor on 29th November 2014. Though

PW1 was admitted to hospital on 29th November 2014 with the

history of assault, the medical officer has not registered

medico-legal case and intimated the same to the jurisdictional

police. Investigating officer has also not explained anything as

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

to why the PW6-medical officer has not registered the same as

MLC. The contents of complaint-Exhibit P1 reveals that

accused have assaulted PW1 with stick on the left side of her

head and caused internal injuries. Further, all the accused

have dragged PW1 and gave blow on her chest, back and also

to her hands and legs. If really, the accused had assaulted

PW1 as shown in Exhibit P1, PW1 would have sustained severe

injuries and abrasions on her back. But, except finger marks

on the cheek, the wound certificate does not indicate any other

injury. Admittedly, there is enmity between the accused and

the complainant regarding the marriage of son of accused No.2

with the complainant. This evidence of PW1 clearly goes to

show that PWs1, 4 and 5, who are close relatives, are

interested witnesses. This interested testimony of prosecution

has not been corroborated by medical evidence and that there

is no consistency in the contents of Exhibit P1 and evidence of

material witnesses. When there is a previous enmity between

the accused and the complainant, it is indeed natural to depose

against them exaggeratedly, to see that somehow the accused

gets convicted. In the circumstance, without cogent,

corroborative and convincing evidence, it is not safe to rely on

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22766

HC-KAR

the interested testimony of PWs1, 4 and 5 which is not

consistent with the contents of Exhibit P1-complaint. Hence,

the evidence of PWs1, 4 and 5 will create reasonable doubt as

to the act of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. Both

Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in

accordance with law and facts. In view of the principles of

criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt goes to the

accused.

21. On re-examination, re-appreciation and re-

consideration of the evidence on law and facts, I am of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the

guilt of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution.

Accordingly, I answer the point that arose for consideration in

the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed;

2. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence

dated 07th October, 2017 passed in CC No.995

of 2015 by the III Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC, Chitradurga which is confirmed by the I