Allowed

Yallappa S/O Ningappa Jamboti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022CRL.RP/100209/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 CrPC against conviction for Sections 326 and 504 IPC over assault with sickle. Court found material inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and hostile eyewitnesses, granting benefit of doubt to petitioner and allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted of offences under Sections 326 and 504 IPC; bail bonds cancelled.

Yallappa S/O Ningappa Jamboti Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100209 OF 2014

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

YALLAPPA S/O NINGAPPA JAMBOTI AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, R/AT NAIK GALLI SANTI BASTWAD, TQ and DIST: BELGAUM.

¶11

..…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SACHCHIDANAND B. PATIL, ADV FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER, BELGAUM RURAL POLICE STATION, BELGAUM, R/BY HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD SPP.

¶15

..…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SETASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC.III AT BELGAUM IN CRI. APPEAL NO.197 OF 2008 DATED 27.8.2014 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE JMFC, II, BELGAUM IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1755/2006 DATED 27.9.2008 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 326 R/W 504 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 326 AND 504 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION.

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶20

THIS PETITION ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2008 in C.C.No.1755/2006 on the file of the learned JMFC, Belagavi (for short, ‘Trial Court’) and its confirmation order dated 27.08.2014 in Crl.A.No.197/2008 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Belagavi, (for short, ‘Appellate Court’).

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 05.09.2006, when the complainant returned from coolie work and there was verbal altercation between the accused and his wife and the complainant tried to pacify the verbal altercation. At that time, the accused assaulted the complainant with the sickle on the right side of the chest. Resultantly, the complainant sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. PW-12 the Head Constable went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶27

complainant and registered the case in Crime No.155/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 326 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶28

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 and identified the material objects as MO1. On the other hand, the accused has not examined any witness nor marked any documents.

¶29

The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶32

the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

¶33

Heard Sri Sachchidanand B. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶34

Sri Sachchidanand B. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts are contrary to the law and facts. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶35

It is further submitted that, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-11 has not been appreciated properly by both the subordinate Courts. PW6 and PW7 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, however they have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. These facts should have been considered by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence. The Trial Court has committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence of other witnesses and documents, convicted the accused which is unsustainable and therefore, required to be set aside.

¶36

¶37

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶38

Per contra , Sri Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader, justifying the judgment of conviction recorded by both the Courts submits that PW1 after sustaining injuries at the hands of accused, he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, PW-12 recorded the statement of complainant-injured and reduced statement into FIR. Soon after the incident, the information given to the police by the complainant is relevant and complainant has narrated the incident in detail. The evidence of PW1 is relevant and reliable. Even though, he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing is elicited to discredit his evidence regarding the incident. Though, there are some inconsistencies in the evidence, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-11 is relevant.

¶39

It is further submitted that, the findings recorded

¶40

by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are appropriate and interference is not required. Having said thus, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the revision petition.

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶43

10. After having heard the learned counsel for

¶44

parties and on perusal of the documents on record, the points which arise for my consideration are:

¶45

1) Whether the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by subordinate Courts are justifiable?

¶46

2) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the subordinate Courts?

¶47

To answer the above points, it is necessary to

¶48

have a look upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-11 who are the relevant witnesses in this case. PW-1 is the injured in this case and has lodged a complaint stating that when he came to his house after finishing his coolie work, he has seen the accused and his wife were quarreling with each other. Therefore, he went to pacify the matter. Then, the accused got enraged by the involvement of the complainant, went inside the house, and brought the sickle and assaulted the complainant. As a result, the complainant sustained injuries. He was shifted to the

¶49

¶50

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶51

hospital for treatment. PW-8 is the Doctor who treated the complainant, issued certificate as per Ex.P-7.

¶52

Further, the PW1 again contended that, he told the accused and his wife not to quarrel and went near the dias (Katte) and again the accused came with a sickle and assaulted on his chest at that time on Tippanna Naik, Ningappa Ankalagi had also came and pacified the quarrel. The evidence of PW11 who is the wife of the complainant is relevant in this case. According to her, when she was sitting on the varanda of Tippanna Naik, the accused and his wife were quarreling with each other. By the time, her husband came after finishing his work, went to pacify the quarrel. At that time, the accused fought with the complainant for the reason that, he came to help his wife and got enraged and went inside the house, brought the sickle and assaulted her husband-complainant. The accused went inside the house and brought the sickle and assaulted the complainant.

¶53

According to PW1, he told the accused and his wife not to quarrel and went to sit on the dias (Katte),

¶54

¶55

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶56

there the accused assaulted the complainant. But, PW11 says when the complainant was coming after finishing the coolie work, he saw the quarrel between the accused and his wife and went to pacify the quarrel, there he was assaulted with the sickle by the accused. Though, PW1 in his evidence stated that, two persons namely, PW6 and PW7 came and pacified the quarrel, these two witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there are some inconsistencies with respect to the alleged incident. This amounts to material irregularities inconsistencies. There is a doubt regarding the alleged incident. Therefore, the said doubt should go to the accused as a benefit of doubt

¶57

In the light of the above observations, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as under:

¶58

Point No.1 in the negative

¶59

Point No.2 in the affirmative

¶60

Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

¶61

¶62

CRL.RP No. 100209 of 2014

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i) This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶65

ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2008 in C.C.No.1755/2006 on the file of the learned JMFC, Belagavi and its confirmation order dated 27.08.2014 in Crl.A.No.197/2008 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Belagavi is set aside.

¶66

iii) The petitioner-accused is accquitted of the offences punishable under Section 326, 504 of IPC.

¶67

iv) The bail bonds, executed if any, stand cancelled.

¶68

NAA

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

Yallappa S/O Ningappa Jamboti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yallappa S/O Ningappa Jamboti 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulwahab S/O Piru Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj Gouda S/O Doddamallan Gouda Vs State of Karnataka

Bandopant B Badavanache Vs Basavana Mahadev Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallappa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Yallapa Gotanavar Vs the State of Karnataka