Partly allowed

Sri.Basavant S/O. Mallappa Kenchavvagol v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2021CRL.P/100269/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition allowing partial relief by directing the Trial Court to cross-examine two specific eyewitnesses consecutively within the same day in the interest of justice, while refusing broader deferral of other witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned Criminal Judge to permit defence to cross-examine C.W.4 and C.W.5 one after the other on the same day.

Sri.Basavant S/O. Mallappa Kenchavvagol Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶6

CRL.P. NO.100269 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. BASAVANT S/O. MALLAPPA KENCHAVVAGOL AGE .46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O BASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309

¶9

SUNEEL S/O.SHIVALINGAPPA KENCHAVVAGOL AGE .31 YEARS, OCC . AGRICULTURE, R/O BASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ . HUKKERI, DIST . BELAGAVI-591309

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.,)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

-2-

¶15

THROUGH YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011

¶16

ASHOK S/O.BASAVANNI KENCHAVVAGOL AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O BASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591305

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUKKERI ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 242(3) OF CR.P.C. IN C.C. NO.248/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326, 504 AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 242(3) OF CR.P.C. MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

-3-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶24

the petitioners are praying for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hukkeri on an application filed under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.248/2016.

¶25

The petitioners are accused in Crime

¶26

No.256/2015 of Yamakanmardi Police Station in which the charge sheet was filed against them for offences punishable under Sections 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. C.W.1-Ashok Basavanni Kenchavvagol is the complainant and the injured person. C.W.4 and C.W.5 are the eyewitnesses. C.W.6 is stated to be the scribe of the complaint. C.W.8 is the Investigation Officer. The accused filed an application under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C., making a prayer before the learned Trial Court for deferring the cross-examination of C.W.4 to C.W.6 and C.W.8 so as to enable the defence to cross-examine them

¶27

-4-

¶28

at one stretch. The said application was dismissed by the order dated 03.02.2020 by the learned Trial Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused, the complainant and the eyewitnesses are all related to each other and they are living in the same vicinity, and therefore, it is necessary to cross-examine C.W.4 to C.W.6 and C.W.8 together in order to prevent them from tutoring each other. He submits that unless the said opportunity is given to the accused, their defence will be prejudiced, and the learned Court below has not appreciated the above aspect and it has dismissed the application and therefore, this petition is required to be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶30

Learned HCGP, per contra submits that as per the charge sheet, only C.W.4 and C.W.5 are the eyewitnesses, C.W.6 is only scribe of the complaint and C.W.8 is the Investigation Officer. He submits that it is not necessary to defer the cross-examination of the

¶31

-5-

¶32

witnesses in the facts and circumstances of this case and he therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed.

¶33

There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the accused cannot seek as a matter of right deferral of cross-examination of witnesses under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C. It is in the discretion of the Court as to whether in a particular case such a facility is required to be afforded to the defence or not. Learned Trial Court has considered the fact that the defence had already cross-examined the complainant who is the injured witness. Further the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that since the complainant-C.W.1 was already cross-examined, it was not required to defer the cross-examination of the other witnesses in this case. However, only two eyewitnesses i.e. C.W.4 and C.W.5 are there and therefore, taking up the cross-examination of the said two eyewitnesses one after the other on the same day will not cause any inconvenience for holding of expeditious trial in the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I feel it

¶34

-6-

¶35

expedient in the facts and circumstances of this case to direct that the cross-examination of C.W.4 and C.W.5 should be taken up by the learned Trial Court one after the other on the same day. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The above petition is allowed in part.

¶38

Learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hukkeri shall permit the defence to cross-examine C.W.4 and C.W.5 one after the other on the same day in C.C.No.248/2016.

¶39

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

yan

Sri.Basavant S/O. Mallappa Kenchavvagol v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Basavant S/O. Mallappa Kenchavvagol v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Chinnavva W/O Basappa Kappalguddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajendra Bandaji Patil Vs Hanuman Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd.

Shri.Sukhvindersingh S/O Pruthvisingh Chug Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Raosaheb S/O Ramu Madar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramanna S/O. Basappa Hallad Vs Sri. Suratsait S/O. Umedmalji Oswal