Partly allowed

Ananda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1011/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition regarding offences of criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and outraging modesty, the High Court found perversity in the courts below appreciating evidence of entry into the premises. The petitioners 1 and 2 were acquitted, while the petition was dismissed regarding petitioners 3 and 4 whose convictions were upheld.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed in part; petitioners 1 and 2 acquitted of offences under sections 448 and 354 IPC; petition dismissed regarding petitioners 3 and 4.

Ananda Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1011 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Ananda, S/o Late Honnegowda, Aged about 18 years, (Correct age is 31 years)

¶8

Harish @ B.M.Honnegowda, S/o Muganna Gowda, Aged about 25 years,

¶9

Smt. Gowramma, W/o Late Honnegowda, Aged about 48 years,

¶10

Smt. Meenakshi, D/o Late Honnegowda, Aged about 23 years,

¶11

All are R/at Bellekere Village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk-573201.

¶12

…Petitioners

¶13

(By Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka By Sub Inspector Goruru Police Station, Hassan Taluk-573201 Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Office attached to

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

High Court Building, Bengaluru.

¶18

…Respondent

¶19

(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

¶20

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 23.04.2016 in C.C.No.4609/2014 (old C.C.No.74/2004) on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan and Judgment and order dated 21.08.2017 in Crl.A.No.98/2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan.

¶21

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for final hearing through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This revision petition is filed by accused 1 to 4 challenging the judgment dated 21.8.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal 98/2016 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The prosecution case is as below : -

¶24

On 29.12.2003 at about 1.00 AM, PW1

¶25

Shylaja was sleeping inside her house. It is stated that accused 1 and 2 trespassed into her house and tried to outrage her modesty. When she

¶26

:: 3 ::

¶27

shouted, they ran away from that place. Again at about 9.30 AM, accused 3 and 4 picked up quarrel with PW1, abused her in vulgar language and then accused No.3 bit on the left thigh of PW1 and then accused No.4 assaulted on the back of PW1 with a brick piece and threatened to kill her. FIR in this regard was registered on 29.12.2003 at 18.00 hours (6.00 PM) for the offences under sections 448, 354, 504, 324, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶28

The trial court after appreciating the evidence of eleven witnesses and eight documents held the petitioners guilty of the offence. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the offences under sections 448 and 354 IPC and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence period of three months for the offence under section 448 and imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of three

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

months for the offence under section 354 IPC.

¶31

Accused 3 and 4 were convicted for the offences under sections 504, 324, 506 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for each of the offence and directed to undergo default sentence

¶32

of three months in case of non-payment of fine. Out of the fine amount, PW1 was awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-. The appellate court did not interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

¶33

I have heard Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶34

Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly. It has not noticed the fact that the testimony of PW1 is not corroborated by the

¶35

:: 5 ::

¶36

independent witnesses. PW2 has turned hostile totally. PW3 is the relative of PW1 and his evidence is tainted with interestedness. PW4 is none other than the mother-in-law of PW1. Her evidence is not consistent; though in the examination-in-chief she speaks about incident said to have taken place in the midnight, with regard to incident that took place during day time she has not supported. PW6 has turned hostile.

¶37

PW5 and PW7 might have supported, but their evidence is unbelievable. It is his argument that PW1 did not go to the police station immediately after the incident, the very registration of FIR at about 6.00 PM shows lot of deliberations having taken place before registration of FIR. The wound certificate shows presence of abrasion on the left thigh of PW1. It does not indicate presence of bite mark, and the doctor has not been examined. The best witnesses to the incident said to have taken place in the mid night are the children of

¶38

:: 6 ::

¶39

PW1 but, they have not been cited as witnesses. With lot of infirmities, the trial court ought not to have convicted the petitioners. For the same reason, the appellate court should not have confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Even the appellate court has failed to appreciate the evidence. In this view, there is a case for interference and therefore this revision petition deserves to be allowed and all the petitioners deserve to be acquitted.

¶40

Sri K.S.Abhijith, the learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the revision petition by submitting that when two courts below have appreciated the evidence, there is no scope for reappreciation of evidence in the revision petition. According to the prosecution two incidents took place, one in the midnight and the other during the day time. With regard to the incident in the midnight, the testimony of PW1 itself is believable.

¶41

:: 7 ::

¶42

There is ample evidence to show that when she was sleeping, petitioners 1 and 2 who are accused 1 and 2 claimed illegal entry into the house of PW1, pulled the bed sheet that she was covering and tried to outrage her modesty. This was witnessed by PW2 and 3. PW1 has not been discredited in the cross-examination. Though PW2 has turned hostile, PW3 has supported the prosecution. PW4 has also testified the evidence of PW1. To this extent the best witnesses are PW1, 3 and 4 who have consistently spoken. Therefore the trial court is justified in holding accused 1 and 2 being guilty of sections 448 and 354 of IPC. His further argument with regard to the incident that took place at 9.30 AM is that there is ample evidence. The testimony of PW1 is corroborated by PW5 and 7, medical certificate marked as Ex.P8 also indicates presence of an injury on the left thigh of PW1. Merely for the reason that the doctor was not examined, the

¶43

:: 8 ::

¶44

incident that took place in the day time cannot be disbelieved at all. Delay is also explained. In this view, there is no scope for interference in this revision petition.

¶45

I have considered the points of arguments, gone through the entire evidence and also the judgments of the courts below.

¶46

According to the prosecution, two incidents took place. The first incident is at 1.00 AM, i.e., in the midnight when PW1 was sleeping. As rightly argued by the Government Pleader, there cannot be re-appreciation of evidence while deciding a revision petition. However, if perversity in appreciation of evidence is made out, certainly the court can interfere in revision jurisdiction. So far as the incident that took place in the midnight is concerned, I do not think that the trial court has come to a right conclusion on the evidence available on record. The appellate

¶47

:: 9 ::

¶48

court has also failed to notice the legal infirmities in the evidence of PW1. PW1 has stated that when she was sleeping, in the midnight she saw accused 1 and 2 standing beside her and trying to pull the bed sheet that she had covered. She has stated that she cried at that time and this cry attracted the attention of neighbours namely Eregowda and Ningegowda who were examined as PWs2 and 3 respectively. Seeing them, accused 1 and 2 ran away. In the cross-examination it is elicited from her that she was sleeping along with her two children aged about 13 and 14 years. Her motherin-law was also sleeping there. It is elicited that before going to bed, she used to bolt the main door and back door. She has also stated in the cross-examination that when accused 1 and 2 came inside the house, her children woke up and they also started crying. PW2 has totally turned hostile and PW3 has of course given evidence that he heard the shouting of PW1 and when he went

¶49

:: 10 ::

¶50

near the house, he saw accused 1 and 2 being

¶51

there and trying to pull PW1 and therefore he questioned them. He admits in the cross-

¶52

examination that the children of PW1 and the mother-in-law were also inside the house at that time. PW4 is the mother-in-law of PW1 and she too has given evidence that in the midnight, her daughter-in-law started shouting and when she woke up she saw accused 1 and 2 trying to pull PW1. In the cross-examination she has given answers in such a way that becomes very difficult to believe what she has stated in the examinationin-chief. Therefore, with regard to the first incident, if evidence of four witnesses PW1 to PW4 is considered, it may be stated that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence in the sense that there is no explanation as to how accused 1 and 2 could gain entry into the house of PW1 in the midnight that too when the main door and back door were bolted from inside. The

¶53

:: 11 ::

¶54

evidence of the mother-in-law of PW1 is not

¶55

inspiring. Though PW3 is stated to have seen accused 1 and 2 in the midnight in the house of PW1, his evidence also does not disclose as to how accused 1 and 2 could gain entry into the house of PW1 in the midnight and moreover it is elicited from him that he is a witness in a civil suit pending between the husband of PW1 and father of accused 1 and 2. Above all, the best witnesses

¶56

were children of PW1. They were not small children, as has been stated by PW1 their ages were 13 and 14 years. It is not forthcoming as to why the investigating officer did not think it necessary at least to cite the children of PW1 as witnesses. The best evidence has been withheld. If the evidence as a whole is considered, it becomes very difficult to believe the testimony of PW1 as also PW4. Therefore the trial court should not have held accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offence under sections 448 and 354 of IPC. The

¶57

:: 12 ::

¶58

appellate court should have also applied its mind whether really accused 1 and 2 could have been held guilty of the offence.

¶59

However, as far as imputation of offence

¶60

against accused 3 and 4 is concerned, it is to be stated that both the courts below have come to right conclusion to hold them guilty of the offences under sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. The wound certificate clearly indicates presence of an injury on the left thigh of PW1. Non-examination of the doctor is not fatal. Delay as has been highlighted by the petitioner’s counsel cannot be given importance because the evidence of PW1 shows evidence with regard to an attempt to hold panchayat. Thus delay is explained. There are independent witnesses for the second incident. When the evidence in this regard is consistent, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction passed against accused 3 and 4.

¶61

:: 13 ::

¶62

From the above discussions, I come to

¶63

conclusion that the revision petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I pass the following : -

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(a) Revision petition is allowed in part.

¶66

(b) The judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court against petitioners 1 and 2, i.e., accused 1 and 2 for the offences under sections 448 and 354 IPC is set aside. Petitioners 1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences under sections 448 and 354 of IPC.

¶67

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

ckl/-

Ananda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda v. 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

Sri.Manjeshwara Vs Sri.Dharme Gowda

R. Geetha Vs Shanthamma

Shabina Syed Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

T.D.Begure Gowda Vs C.N.Murthy

Smt Vinaya S Shetty Vs M/S Makara Jyothi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State by