Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Farooq on 28 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 438 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, DK., MANGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-01
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)
AND:
FAROOQ
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
SON OF BAVU BEARY
R/AT URPEL PADE HOUSE
Digitally signed GANTALKATTE, KARINJE VILLAGE
by MAYAGAIAH MANGALURU TALUK-575 001.
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY MR. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL PASSED IN C.C.NO.238/2012 DATED 10.07.2017
ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
MOODABIDRI AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.30/2018 ON 14.11.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
CRL.RP No. 438 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
The State has preferred this revision petition against the
judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.30/2018 by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore
(hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge' for short),
whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed
by the State by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidre, D.K., in
C.C.No.238/2012 dated 10.07.2017.
2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 13.09.2011 at about 12.15 p.m., PW.2-PSI along with
PW.1 and other police constables had gone to the house of the
respondent-accused for apprehending him in Cr.No.96/2011 for
the offences punishable under Sections 365, 376, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC, which was registered in his police station. It is further case
of the prosecution that, when himself and other officials
reached the house of the accused, the accused went inside the
house and thereafter protested them by holding a machete. He
also threatened them with dire consequence. However, PW.2 in
order to safeguard himself and his staff, fired in a service pistol
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
one round in the air. At that time, the accused by throwing the
machete ran away from the backside door of the house.
Accordingly, PW.2 registered a suo moto complaint against the
accused, which came to be registered in Cr.No.136/2011 for
the offences punishable under Sections 353 of IPC. Later PW.4
investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the accused
for the aforementioned offence before the trial Court.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused
before the trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 4
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked 4 documents as
Exs.P1 to P4 and got identified 3 material objections i.e., MOs.1
to 3. Though the accused has not examined any witnesses on
his behalf, he got marked one document i.e., Ex.D1.
4. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. The said
judgment of acquittal challenged by the State before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in
Crl.A.No.30/2018. On re-assessment of entire evidence on
record, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
the State. The said judgment is challenged in this revision
petition.
5. I have heard learned HCGP Sri Rajath Subramanya
for the State-revision petitioner and learned counsel
Sri Dhananjay Kumar for the respondent-accused.
6. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that
both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred
while acquitting the accused without appreciating the evidence
in a right perspective. He further contended that PW.1 to PW.4,
being official witnesses, have categorically deposed the act
committed by the accused. In such circumstances, the
prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. However, the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, based on surmise or conjecture, acquitted the
accused. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition and
to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
after meticulously examining the evidence on record at length,
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
passed a well reasoned judgments which do not call for
interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended
that, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 so
also the seizure mahazar-Ex.P1 and the compliant lodged by
PW.2 as per Ex.P2. On perusal of these two documents, the
genesis of the crime itself is in doubt. Further, PW.3 and PW.4,
being the official witnesses, have given go-bye to the
prosecution case in their cross-examination. In such
circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court acquitted the accused for the charges levelled
against him. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and having given my anxious consideration to the
documents made available before me including the judgments
passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the only
point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the First Appellate Court is justified
in dismissing the appeal filed by the State-revision
petitioner by confirming the acquittal judgment
passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.238/2012?"
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
9. It could be gathered from the records that on the
alleged date of incident i.e., 13.09.2011, PW.2 after receiving
credible information about the presence of the accused in his
house, went along with his staff to apprehend him in
connection with Cr.No.96/2011 and at that time, the accused
resisted them with the machete and also abused them in filthy
language. On perusal of Ex.P2, the complaint lodged by PW.2
depicts that after the accused fled away from the spot, PW.2
and others recovered the machete from the house of the
accused and registered complaint at about 2.30 p.m.
Interestingly, it could be gathered from Ex.P1-Sezuire mahazar
dated 13.09.2011 that PW.2 seized the machete from the
house of the accused at about 3.15 to 4.00 p.m. Hence, there
arises a doubt in the mind of this Court about the raid
conducted by PW.2 on the house of the accused on the alleged
date of incident at about 2.30 p.m.
10. Nevertheless on careful perusal of the evidence of
PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 i.e., the police constables, who have
accompanied PW.2 to apprehend the accused, have denied
their 161 statements allegedly stated before the Investigation
Officer. They admitted that the accused has not shown the
NC: 2025:KHC:13217
machete to PW.2 at the time of his apprehension. Further,
there are material contradictions in their evidence in respect of
time of raid on the house of the accused and the seizure of
machete in the house of the accused. Admittedly, the accused
was not arrested in the spot on the date of the incident. In such
circumstance, I am of the considered view that the trial Court
and the First Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and passed a well reasoned judgments.
Nevertheless, this revision petition, being preferred against the
acquittal judgments passed by the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, there are no good grounds to interfere with
the same since the same does not suffers from any perversity.
Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the affirmative
and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The revision petition preferred by the State is
dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VM
