Partly allowed

Harinath Reddy v. State by

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2020CRL.RP/852/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the challenge to the conviction of two petitioners for obstructing a public servant and affray. While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence, setting aside imprisonment and imposing a fine and default imprisonment instead.

What did the court decide?

The order of conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment set aside and modified to a fine of Rs. 10,000 each with default imprisonment of two months.

Harinath Reddy Vs State by — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.852/2011

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

HARINATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY R/AT: NO.348, 2^ND CROSS VIVEKNAGAR, ROBERTSONPET KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563 112

¶10

ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI CHINNAPPA REDDY R/AT: NO.1486, 12^TH CROSS SWARNA NAGAR, ROBERTSONPET KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563 112

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.C.PATTABI RAMAN, ADV. FOR P.R AND P.R. ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

STATE BY ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION KOLAR GOLD FIELDS – 563 122 … RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶18

¶19

JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF IN C.C.NO.352/2010 AND ORDER DATED 05.07.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KGF IN CRL.A.NO.13/2011.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

“Whether the impugned orders of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC suffer any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness?” is the question involved in this case.

¶23

The petitioners were accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.352/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. K.G.F. Robertsonpet police charge sheeted the petitioners in the said case for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the complaint – Ex.P1 filed by PW.1.

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶25

¶26

petitioners will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the Trial Court.

¶27

The case of the prosecution in brief was

¶28

as follows:

¶29

That on 13.07.2010, PWs.1 and 2 were deployed to work as driver and conductor in K.S.R.T.C. bus No.KA-07-F-1348 operating from Bengaluru to K.G.F. and vice versa. When the bus was proceeding from Bengaluru to KGF, the petitioners boarded the bus in Bangarpet bus stand and they were standing on the foot board of the bus. When PW.1 advised them not to stand on the foot board and come and sit inside, the accused abused him in foul language, insulted him with an intention to provoke him. Further, they intimidated him, if he dares to advice them. The accused obstructed PW.1 public servant from discharging his duty as such. The passengers intervened and pacified.

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶31

¶32

5. Regarding the incident, PW.1 filed

¶33

complaint as per Ex.P1 before PW.4. On that basis, PW.4 registered the FIR - Ex.P3 in Crime No.89/2010 of their police station, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW.3 was allegedly the passenger traveling in the said bus and thus eyewitness.

¶34

On filing the charge sheet, the trial Court

¶35

took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused and tried them for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

7. The prosecution led its evidence. After

¶37

their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court, on hearing the parties by the judgment and order dated 05.02.2011 convicted the accused and sentenced them for the offences punishable under

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶39

¶40

Sections 353, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶41

The Trial Court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC with a default sentence.

¶42

The accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before Fast Track Court, K.G.F. in Crl.A.No.13/2011. The First Appellate Court by the judgment dated 05.07.2011 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶43

Both the Courts held that the charge brought against the accused were proved by the

¶44

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶45

¶46

evidence of the victim/eye-witness PW.1, PWs.2 and 3 - the other eye-witnesses. The Courts below further held that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 corroborate each other.

¶47

Sri C.Pattabi Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint and there were material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the Courts below ignored that. According to him, the impugned order of conviction and sentence suffers perversity. He further submits that the petitioners are the Ex-defence servicemen and they have no other criminal antecedents. He further submits that since ten years the petitioners are facing these proceedings. At least the sentence of imprisonment may be set aside.

¶48

Per contra, Sri. H.R.Showri, learned HCGP justifies the impugned orders on the ground that the accused nowhere disputed that PWs.1 and 2 were on

¶49

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶50

¶51

duty on that day. He further submits that nothing worth was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 to discredit their evidence and there was no reason for PWs.1 to 3 to falsely implicate the accused in the case.

¶52

This being the revision petition under

¶53

Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the concurrent findings of the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence, the scope of interference in the matter is very limited. Unless it is shown that the impugned orders of conviction and sentence suffer perversity, glaring illegality or impropriety, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

¶54

The case of the prosecution was based on:

¶55

i) Ocular evidence of PW.1 - the victim, PW.2 - the conductor of the bus, PW.3 - the passenger of the bus;

¶56

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶57

¶58

ii) PW.5 - the Manager of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus depot

¶59

K.G.F., PW.4 - the Investigation Officer.

¶60

PW.5 deposed that on 13.08.2010 he

¶61

deputed PWs.1 and 2 to discharge duty as driver and conductor in the bus of their depot on route No.91 between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 mid night and they discharged their duty as such. In that regard he issued the certificate as per Ex.P4 and Log sheet Ex.P5.

¶62

PWs.1 and 2 deposed that in discharge of the duty assigned to them on 13.08.2010 they left K.G.F. at 4:00 p.m., on that day reached Bengaluru at 10:00 p.m., and from Bengaluru after boarding of the passengers, they proceeded towards K.G.F. and enroute the incident happened.

¶63

In the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2

¶64

nowhere the fact of they working as driver and conductor in bus No.KA-07-F-1348 was disputed.

¶65

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶66

¶67

Therefore, the Courts below were justified in holding that on the date of incident PWs.1 and 2 being the public servants were discharging their duties as driver and conductor on K.G.F. – Bengaluru – K.G.F. route.

¶68

Regarding the incident, PWs.1 and 2

¶69

deposed that the accused boarded the bus at 12:30 mid night in Bangarpet bus stand and they were standing on the foot board of the bus. They further deposed that when PW.1 advised them to come inside the bus and seated, the accused abused him in foul language and threatened him that they will secure their people by a phone call and set the bus on fire and threatened to kill him, thereby obstructed him from discharging his duty. PW.1 states that PWs.2 and 3 pacified the accused.

¶70

In the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused suggested two theories:

¶71

i) That they did not travel in the bus;

¶72

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶73

¶74

ii) that Accused No.1 was working in a pharmaceuticals company and PW.1 had borrowed loan from him and to gulp that loan amount, he has filed a false complaint against accused.

¶75

In the cross-examination of PW.2, there was no denial of the accused traveling on the bus on that day. The suggestion of the accused to PW.1 itself goes to show that they were known to PW.1. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in holding that the prosecution proved that the accused were the passengers and PWs.1 and 2 were the crew of the bus at the relevant time.

¶76

The next contention of the counsel for the accused is that there was delay in filing the complaint and there were contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the time and manner of filing the complaint, therefore, their evidence regarding the

¶77

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶78

¶79

accused committing offence against PW.1 is

¶80

unbelievable one.

¶81

PW.1 says that since he had to take the

¶82

permission of his senior officers, he filed the complaint next morning. The complaint – Ex.P1 purports to be received on 14.07.2010 at 7:10 a.m. The FIR is purportedly registered on 14.07.2010 at 7:10 a.m., and that was delivered to the Magistrate on the same date at 7:40 a.m. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve that the complaint was filed on 14.07.2010 at 7:10 a.m.

¶83

PW.5 also stated in his evidence that after

¶84

the incident, PW.1 informed him and then filed the complaint. No fault can be found with PW.1 in informing the senior officer and then filing the complaint.

¶85

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶86

¶87

It is no doubt true that PW.2 in his chief-

¶88

examination stated that after reaching K.G.F. they parked the bus in the depot then informed his senior officers and filed the complaint on next morning. Though he stated in the cross-examination that police enquired him on the date of the incident at about 12.45 midnight, he has stated that they did not inform the matter to the police during that night as they had to inform their higher officers.

¶89

Having regard to the over all evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the trial Court did not attach much importance to the statement of PW.5 that police enquired him at 12.45 midnight. That does not demolish the entire prosecution case.

¶90

PW.3, deposed that on the date of the incident after visiting Bengaluru for purchasing the auto rickshaw spare parts, he was returning to KGF in that bus and he narrated the sequence of the events. His evidence was tried to be impeached only

¶91

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶92

¶93

on the ground that he had not bought the ticket and Investigating Officer has not seized the bus ticket. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that he had traveled with his friend and his friend had bought the ticket.

¶94

PW.3 stated in his evidence that he was the resident of K.G.F. The said fact was not disputed in his cross-examination. No motive was attributed him to falsely implicate the petitioners. It was only suggested to him that since he was the friend of PW.1, at his behest he deposed falsely which he denied. Under such circumstances, the Courts below were justified in holding that the evidence of PW.1 was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. Further their evidence was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 5.

¶95

Though the accused in the

¶96

cross-examination of PW.1 imputed the motive that he tried to implicate the accused due to the loan

¶97

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶98

¶99

transaction between them, same was denied.

¶100

Nothing was elicited to substantiate the theory of false implication. Accused No.1 in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not whisper about any loan transaction.

¶101

Having regard to the material on record, it cannot be said that the approach of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence was perverse.

¶102

Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court.

¶103

So far as the order of sentence, it is submitted that the accused are the Ex-defence servicemen. They have faced these proceedings for about ten years. Though they intimidated PW.1, it is

¶104

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶105

¶106

not the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted any physical violence on him.

¶107

The offences under Sections 353 and 504

¶108

of IPC are punishable with imprisonment upto two years or with fine. The offence under Section 506 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years or with fine.

¶109

The petitioners/accused have no other criminal antecedents. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds it just and appropriate to modify the sentence by increasing the sentence of fine and setting aside the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed.

¶110

The impugned order of conviction is hereby confirmed. The order of sentence of imprisonment passed by the Trial Court against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and

¶111

Crl.R.P.No.852/2011

¶112

¶113

506 read with Section 34 of IPC is modified as follows.

¶114

The accused/petitioners are hereby sentenced to fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC respectively. In default to pay fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶115

Sd/JUDGE

¶116

Harinath Reddy v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinath Reddy v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rehabare Islam Parvez Vs State of Karnataka

T R Srinivasaiah Vs Chikkamagaluru District

Sri B Prakash Vs Sri Shivanayaka

Sri. Ramakrishnappa Vs Smt.Bhagyamma

Sri Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Ramaiah Vs Sri. T Shivanath