Allowed

State of Karnataka v. Manohar S/O Rayappa Revanakar

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2023CRL.RP/100237/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in criminal revision allowed State's petition, set aside trial court's discharge order under Sec.227 Cr.P.C. regarding acid case, and directed trial court to frame charge against accused, citing sufficient material including extra-judicial confession and motive.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order discharged under Sec.227 Cr.P.C. set aside. Trial court directed to frame charge. Matter to be disposed within 6 months.

State of Karnataka Vs Manohar S/O Rayappa Revanakar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100237/2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, KAMARIPETH P.S. HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT, THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A. G. OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶14

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶15

MANOHAR, S/O RAYAPPA REVANAKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O. WALVEKAR CHAWL, TALIB TANDA, NEAR WATER TANK, NOW AT WADDAR ONI, GANESHPETH, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PINCODE-580020.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. AAYUSH G.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING THIS COURT TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C.NO.153/2016 DATED 29/12/2018 ON THE FILE

¶19

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶20

¶21

OF 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND FINDINGS OF THE TRAIL COURT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRAIL COURT IN S.C.NO.153/2016 DATED 29/12/2018 AND TO DIRECT THE TRAIL COURT TO FRAME THE CHARGE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 326(A), 307 & 506 OF IPC.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This revision petition is by State challenging the order passed by the trial Court discharging the respondent/accused by allowing his application filed u/sec.227 Cr.P.C. for the offence p/u/s 324, 326-A, 307 and 506 IPC.

¶25

In support of the petition, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case and as such not sustainable. The impugned order is not based on any acceptable reasoning. It is contrary to the material placed on record. CW15-Manjunath Lokimath is the witness to the extra judicial confession made by the accused. CW16 and 17

¶26

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶27

¶28

are the wife and daughter of accused and they have spoken to about the complainant peeping into the bathroom of their house while they were taking bath. There is also corroborative statement of the medical officer and the investigating officer. Moreover, complainant is the injured and primary witness and in the light of these materials, the impugned order discharging the accused is not sustainable. Instead of examining whether there is prima facie case, the trial Court has indulged itself into conducting a mini trial which is not permissible. Considering the serious allegations against the accused, matter requires detailed trial and pray to allow the revision, set aside the impugned order.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent/accused has supported the impugned order and submitted that right from the beginning complainant is coming with contradictory statements and considering the overall material placed in the charge sheet, the trial Court has rightly discharged the respondent/accused and the

¶30

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶31

¶32

impugned order does not call for interference by this Court

¶33

and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶35

Complainant is Nasir Ahmed, aged 21 years as on

¶36

the date of complaint. On 01.02.2023 (while undergoing treatment at the hospital), he lodged a complaint stating that about 2-3 months back, he came in contact with one Touhid

¶37

Bepari and during Ramzan both of them engaged in sale of cloths at Shah bazaar and used to meet frequently at their respective places. On 30.01.2013 at 9.30 p.m. after taking dinner, he came out of the house and found Touhid Bepari outside the house. Touhid Bepari took him to auto stand and demanded back Rs.5,000/- given for business and gave

¶38

threat that if he fails to return the money he is going to put acid on him. He replied that he is not going to return the money and do whatever he want. Before he could finish his words, Touhid Bepari splashed acid on his face from a bottle. Complainant sustained burn injuries on his forehead, right

¶39

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶40

¶41

cheek, right eye, right ear, left shoulder and back of his forearms. When he cried in pain, Touhid Bepari ran away. Complainant returned the home, did not inform anyone and slept through the night. However on the next day i.e. on 30.01.2013 at 4.25 p.m. he got himself admitted to KIMS, Hubballi and filed the complaint.

¶42

Based on his complaint, case was registered in Crime No.8/2013 against Touhid Bepari. Infact, the investigating officer has recorded statements of some of the witnesses and also further statements of complainant. After realizing that there is no person by name Touhid Bepari, the investigating officer has recorded further statement of complainant on 04.10.2013 wherein he has disclosed the complicity of accused in the crime and the fact that complainant was in the habit of peeping into the bathroom of accused through window while his daughter and wife were taking bath and after his wife and daughter complained about it and after keeping watch on the complainant and on being satisfied about the allegations made against the

¶43

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶44

¶45

complainant, on 30.01.2013, accused who is a goldsmith by profession called the complainant to speak to him and confronted him about he peeping into the bathroom of their house through window and suddenly splashed acid from a bottle on the face of complainant.

¶46

It appears being ashamed of disclosing the fact that he was peeping into the bathroom of accused while his wife and daughter were taking bath and for this reason, the accused has taken the extreme step of splashing acid on complainant, initially he has not chosen to file any complaint and tried to keep the matter to himself. Having regard to the fact that he was assaulted using acid and when he is unable to bear with the pain and manage the things by himself, the complainant has gone to KIMB Hubballi for treatment and after the police were informed of the case, they have approached the complainant and at this stage, not able to conceal the matter, complainant has chosen to hookup a false story of imaginary person throwing acid on him. Though initially the investigating officer has conducted the

¶47

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶48

¶49

investigation on these lines, later on realizing that there is no person by name Touhid Bepare, it appears on being interrogated by the investigating officer, the complainant has disclosed the true facts and accordingly the investigating officer has conducted the investigation against the accused and ultimately filed the charge sheet.

¶50

Although as rightly pointed out by the trial Court that there is no recovery at the instance of accused and consequently his voluntary statement given to the police is inadmissible, there is statement of complainant and also the FSL report regarding presence of acid on the cloths of complainant. There is also extra judicial confession by the accused before CW15-Manjunath. Having regard to the fact that accused is a goldsmith; he is in a position to secure acid for the purpose of goldsmith work. The statements of the wife and daughter of accused speaks about the motive for accused to assault the complainant. With this, there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused. It may be a fact that at the first instance complainant has not

¶51

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶52

¶53

come up with true story and tried to conceal the motive for

¶54

accused to commit the offence, it is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. If found reliable, even the solitary evidence of complainant would be sufficient to convict the accused. Therefore, only on the ground that initially the complainant has not come up with true facts, ignoring the material placed on record in the charge sheet, the trial Court has erred in discharging the accused by allowing his application filed u/sec.227 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to the set aside and accordingly, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

Revision petition filed by the State u/sec.397 r/w/s 401 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶57

The impugned order dated 29.12.2018 in S.C.No.153/2016 on the file of I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed u/sec.227 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶58

CRL.RP NO.100237/2019

¶59

¶60

The trial Court is directed to frame charge

¶61

against the accused and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶62

Since the case is of the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the case preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of order.

¶63

Both prosecution and accused shall co-operate with the trial Court in disposing of the matter within the specified time.

¶64

Send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith.

¶65

CLK

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

State of Karnataka v. Manohar S/O Rayappa Revanakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Manohar S/O Rayappa Revanakar

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

Mr Rohidas G Desi Vs Shreenika Chits Private Ltd.

Sri. Shivangouda S/O Hanamantagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Raju S/O Hanamanth Waddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R N Murthy Vs Sri Mustaq Ahmad

Sri.Bahuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Davalsab S/O Mohammad Sab Mitlakod Alias Dothihal Vs State of Karnataka