Partly allowed

Sri Ramamurthy v. State by Hoskote Ps

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2023CRL.RP/126/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of the criminal revision petition. The court acquitted the petitioner of charges under sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC due to insufficient evidence. It upheld convictions for sections 354, 427 and 448 IPC but modified the sentence to monetary fines instead of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The judgment convicting the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 506 of IPC was set aside. The conviction for offences punishable under sections 354, 427 and 448 of IPC was u

Sri Ramamurthy Vs State by Hoskote Ps — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRL.R.P. NO. 126 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O VENKATRAMANAPPAA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT BHATTARAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV.)

¶11

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY HOSKOTE P.S REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.12.2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT IN CRL.A.NO.38/2010 AND ALSO JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENE DATED 01.06.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J.M., BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.438/2009 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.P. AND ACQUIT THE PETR. FROM ALL THE CHARGES.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of Code

¶20

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed

¶21

by the accused challenging the judgment and order of

¶22

¶23

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶24

conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District (for short the 'Trial Court) in C.C.No.438/2009 dated 01.06.2010 and the judgment and order passed by the II Additional Sessions & Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District (for short the 'Appellate Court') in Crl.A.No.38/2010 dated 27.12.2013.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

¶26

Facts leading to filing of this revision petition narrated briefly are, on 02.10.2008 at 11:45 p.m, the accusedpetitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant - Sakshi Gowda PW1 and thereafter he also assaulted the complainant, outraged her modesty and also assaulted her daughter PW4. With regard to this incident on the basis of complaint lodged by PW1, jurisdiction police had registered a criminal case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 448, 427, 323, 324, 354 and 506 of IPC and after investigation police had filed charge sheet for the said offences and the case was numbered as C.C.No.438/2009.

¶27

¶28

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶29

In the said proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the

¶30

trial court and pleaded not guilty.

¶31

The prosecution to prove its case against the

¶32

petitioner had examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, got marked 3 documents as Ex.P1 to P3 and also got marked 2 material objects as M.O.1 and 2. The petitioner who had denied the incriminating circumstances available against him on record during the course of his section 313 of Cr.P.C statement, however did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial court thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides and by judgment and order dated 01.06.2010 convicted the petitioner for the offences for which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. In respect of offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. In respect of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and in respect of offence punishable

¶33

¶34

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶35

under Section 354 of IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1½ months. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for ½ months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No.38/2010 on 27.12.2013 and it is under this factual background the petitioner is before this court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. He submits that the prosecution has not produced medical records relating to the injury suffered by the victims in the incident in question nor the doctor who had treated the victims was examined before the Court. He submits that the evidence on record does not prove that the petitioner

¶37

¶38

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶39

had any intention either to outrage the modesty of PW1 or to

¶40

damage the teapoy in her house and therefore even the conviction for the offences punishable under section 354 and 427 of IPC is bad. He submits that there is no material available on record which would attract section 506 of IPC against the petitioner. He accordingly, prays to allow the revision petition.

¶41

Per Contra , learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition and submits that the Courts below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record have recorded a concurrent finding against the petitioner. She submits that unless the petitioner is able to prove that the impugned judgment suffers from illegality or perversity this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶42

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

¶43

¶44

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶45

The prosecution to prove its charge against the

¶46

petitioner beyond reasonable doubt had examined 6 witnesses as PWs1 to 6. PW1 is the complainant who was assaulted by the petitioner inside her house after he forcibly trespassed into her house and also caused damaged the teapoy inside the house. The complaint lodged by PW1 is marked as Ex.P1. PW.1 has reiterated the averments made by her in the complaint and she has stated that the petitioner came to her house at about 11:45 p.m. on 02.10.2008 and knocked the door. Since PW1 and her daughter did not open the door, PW1 forcibly opened the door and trespassed into her house and glass top of teapoy was broken. She has further stated that the petitioner tore the night dress she was wearing and attempted to outrage her modesty. She also stated that she had suffered injury as a result of assault by the petitioner for which she was treated.

¶47

From the evidence of PW1, the offences punishable under sections 354, 427 & 448 is straightaway attracted as against the petitioner. However, with regard to injury suffered by PW1 in the incident in question, she has not produced any wound certificate nor has she produced any material with regard to treatment taken by her for the said injuries. The

¶48

7 - CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶49

prosecution has not examined the doctor who had treated PW1

¶50

nor has it produced any medical records with regard to the injury suffered by PW1 and treatment taken by her for the same. PW4 is the daughter of PW1 who was also allegedly assaulted by the petitioner. Undisputedly, she had not suffered any injury in the alleged incident that had taken place on 02.10.2008. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove its charge against the petitioner for the offences under section 323 & 324 of IPC. In the complaint PW1 has stated that the petitioner had criminally intimidated her and threatened her with dire consequences to her life. During the course of her deposition, she has not stated anything about the alleged threat given by the petitioner to her.

¶51

PW4 during the course of examination has stated that the petitioner had threatened the student who had gathered near her house immediately after the incident but none of the students have been examined by the prosecution nor their statement was recorded during the course of investigation. Therefore, the charges against the petitioner even in respect of the offence punishable under section 506 was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

¶52

8 - CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶53

Under the circumstance, I am of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 323, 324 and 506 of IPC. Insofar as the offences punishable under sections 354, 427 and 448 are concerned, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 clearly attracts the said provision of law against the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that PW4 during the course of her crossexamination has contradicted the version of PW1 with regard to dress that she was wearing at the time of incident, the fact that the dress that PW1 was wearing on the date of incident which was allegedly torn by the petitioner was seized and the same was produced and marked by the prosecution as material object and the said dress was identified by PW1 would establish that the prosecution has successfully proved that on the date of incident the petitioner had torn the dress worn by PW1 and thereby attempted to outrage her modesty.

¶54

For attracting the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, it is not only the intention to outrage the modesty of victim that matters but if the accused knowing that his act is likely to result in outraging her modesty, commits the said act,

¶55

¶56

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶57

then he would be liable for the offence punishable under section

¶58

354 of IPC.

¶59

PW1 and PW4 have consistently said that the petitioner forcibly broke open the door of their house and trespassed into their house and also had caused damage to the teapoy inside the house. Though PW1 and PW4 were crossexamined by defence nothing was elicited from them so as to disbelieve their version. Therefore, the prosecution had proved its charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 427 and 448 IPC also. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below in so far as it relates to convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 323, 324 and 506 of IPC cannot be sustained and the same is upheld insofar as it relates convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354, 427 and 448 of IPC.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a married person with children and he has no criminal antecedent. He also submits that the incident has taken place in the year 2008 and since already 15 years have lapsed after the incident, this Court while passing the order of

¶61

10 -

¶62

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶63

sentence for the offences which the petitioner is convicted may take a lenient view. I find some force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. For the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, as on the date of incident, the punishment provided was imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or fine, or with both. Even for the offences punishable under section 427 and 448 of IPC, the punishment would be either imprisonment or fine or with both. Taking into consideration, the year in which the crime was committed, the age of the accused and the fact that he is now married and having children, I am of the considered view that if the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine for the offence for which he is convicted, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:-

¶64

:: ORDER ::

¶65

Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.

¶66

The judgment and order of conviction passed

¶67

by the Courts below in so far as it relates to offences punishable under section 323, 324 and 506 of IPC is set-aside and insofar as it relates to

¶68

11 -

¶69

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶70

the offences punishable under section 354, 427 and

¶71

448 of IPC is concerned are upheld.

¶72

The order of sentence imposed by the Courts below is modified as follows:

¶73

a) For the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

¶74

b) For the offence punishable under section 427 of IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and for the offence punishable under section 448 of IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

¶75

12 -

¶76

CRL.RP No. 126 of 2014

¶77

The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount

¶78

within a period of four weeks from the date of

¶79

receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

NMS

Sri Ramamurthy v. State by Hoskote Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramamurthy v. State by Hoskote Ps

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

R B Ganesh Vs Mahadevi

Amman Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Krishnamurthy H Vs the State of Karnataka

Faisal Khan Vs State by

D M Ramakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

P Muniraju Vs Venkatesh N R