Allowed

R Sateesh v. State by Honnali Police Station

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023CRL.RP/1304/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the conviction of the petitioner. The Court found that prosecution witnesses made general allegations without specifying details of the assault or injuries, and their oral evidence was not corroborated by medical evidence, leading to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted of offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC; fine refunded and bail bond cancelled.

R Sateesh Vs State by Honnali Police Station — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1304 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R. SATEESH SON OF RAMAKKARA HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SORATURU, HONNALI DAVANAGERE

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI K.V. SATEESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY HONNALI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

Digitally signed by VINUTHA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 7-11-2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HONNALI, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.517 OF 2007 AND CONFIRMED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2014 DATED 5-9-2015.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard Sri K.V. Sateesh Chandra, learned counsel for

¶23

the petitioner, and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 7-11-2013 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Honnali, in Criminal Case No.517 of 2007 and confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2014 dated 5-9-2015.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant-State.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶27

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW1-Haleshappa-complainant is the father-in-law of the accused, PW2-Lokeshamma is the wife of PW1, and PW3Bhagya is the daughter of the complainant. PW3 was given in marriage to the accused in the year 1998. The accused was working in Agricultural Co-operative Society and he was removed from service. On 13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m., PWs.1 and 2 had gone to the house of the accused to

¶28

enquire him as to why he lost his job, at that time, the accused abused him in filthy language, intentionally insulted them to provoke their breach of peace and assaulted PW1 by hands. When PW2 came to pacify the quarrel, the accused pushed her to the ground and she sustained injury on her left hand. Immediately, PW3 came to pacify the quarrel, the accused also assaulted her with MO1-club and caused simple injuries on her left shoulder and right leg. Hence, PW1 lodged a complaint. This led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶31

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, got marked five documents as per Exs.P1 to P5 and got marked one material object as per MO1.

¶32

Based on oral and documentary evidence on

¶33

record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC.

¶34

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order

¶35

on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has contended that there is matrimonial dispute between the accused and PW3. PWs.1 to 3 have made general and omnibus allegations against the accused; independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution; PWs.5 and 7, spot and seizure mahazar witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution; ingredients of Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC are not attracted. It is further contended that PWs.1 to 3 have not stated in clear terms as to how the accused assaulted them. The prosecution evidence is full of omissions, contradictions and improvements. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition.

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that PWs.1 to 3 have categorically stated about the injuries sustained by PWs.2 and 3. Thus, oral evidence and documentary evidence are corroborated with each other. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶42

the accused. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

¶43

As rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader that this being a revision petition against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the scope of interference on the factual aspects is very limited.

¶44

As per the charge framed by the trial Court, on 13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with PWs.1 and 2 (parents of PW3), assaulted them and abused them in filthy language and when PW3 came to rescue, the accused assaulted her with club on her shoulder and right leg.

¶45

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution examined:

¶46

a. PW1-Haleshappa, complainant, is the father-in-law of the accused, husband of PW2 and father of PW3. He has deposed that on 13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m., he came to the

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶48

house of the accused and enquired him as to why he is not looking after his daughter properly and thus, the accused picked up quarrel with PWs.1 to 3 and assaulted them and evicted from the house. The accused also assaulted PW3 with MO1-club. In the cross-examination, he admits that prior to the alleged incident, a complaint was registered by PW3 against the accused in respect of cruelty and demand for dowry and later, it was compromised.

¶49

b. PW2-Lokeshamma is the wife of PW1 and mother of PW3. She has deposed that on the date of incident, herself and PW1 had gone to the house of the accused to enquire him as to why he is assaulting her daughter, thus, the accused picked up quarrel with PW1 and assaulted him and when she tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused pushed her to the ground and caused injuries to her. She further deposed that the accused also assaulted her daughter, PW3 with MO1-club and thus, she also sustained injuries and got admitted to the Government hospital, Shivamogga.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶52

c. PW3-Bhagya, wife of the accused and the daughter

¶53

of PWs.1 and 2, has deposed that on 13-6-2007 at 2:00 p.m., the accused assaulted her. Thus, PWs.1 and 2 came to her house and enquired the accused as to why he assaulted her. Hence, the accused picked up quarrel with her parents, assaulted them and abused them in filthy language. The accused also assaulted her with the club and evicted PWs.1 to 3 from the house. Therefore, she and her parents went to the Government hospital, Honnali and Shivamogga, for treatment.

¶54

d. PW4-Kavitha, sister-in-law of the accused, is an

¶55

eyewitness and spot mahazar witness, but she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶56

e. PW5-Basavarajappa is a witness to spot mahazar.

¶57

He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶58

f. PW6-Dr. N. H. Girish, who treated PWs.2 and 3,

¶59

has stated that on 13-6-2007 at 8:45 p.m., PW3 came

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶62

with the history of assault, he examined her and found the following injuries:

¶63

a. Swelling on left shoulder (over old scar)

¶64

b. Pain over right knee.

¶65

Hence, he referred PW3 to higher treatment at

¶66

Shivamogga and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P4. As per his opinion, the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4 would be caused by the club.

¶67

He has further deposed that on the same day at 8:50 p.m., he examined Rudreshamma and found the following injuries:

¶68

a. Pain over left shoulder

¶69

b. Abrasion over left chest.

¶70

Hence, he referred PW2 to higher treatment at Shivamogga and issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P5.

¶71

g. PW7-Siddanagowda is a witness to spot mahazar.

¶72

He too turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶75

h. PW8-U. H. Sathenahalli, Inspector of Police, who

¶76

conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

¶77

On perusal of the evidence on record, the accused has not disputed the occurrence of the incident. PWs.2 and 3 are injured. They have stated about the incident and in their cross-examination, they have admitted that the accused is husband of PW3. Testimony

¶78

of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the time of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. The close relatives of the injured are unlikely to falsely implicate anyone. Sometimes such relationship is guarantee of truth. Where feelings turn high on enmity, prudence may compel the Court to seek corroboration. Mere relationship does not make anyone interested and

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶81

does not discredit the evidence of an eyewitness. Evidence of an interested witness can be acted upon if it is found reliable after careful scrutiny. Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless motive to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person is shown and the defence case of false implication has to be considered carefully.

¶82

In view of the aforesaid background, on perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it appears that PWs.1 and 2 themselves came to the house of accused, enquired him as to why he assaulted their daughter, PW3. It is their evidence that the accused abused PW1. Hence, PW2 came to his rescue and the accused pushed her to the ground and thus, she sustained injury. Therefore, PW3 came to rescue of her parents, at that time, the accused assaulted

¶83

her with MO1-club on her shoulder and right knee. However, PWs.1 to 3 have stated that the accused assaulted them and they sustained injuries, but they have not stated as to where the accused exactly assaulted

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶86

them, whether with hands, legs or club. They have not specifically described the nature of injuries sustained by them and the nature of article used for assault.

¶87

PW6-Dr. N. H. Girish has deposed that PWs.2 and 3 came with the history of assault, he examined them and issued Wound Certificates as per Exs.P4 and P5 respectively.

¶88

From perusal of the evidence of

¶89

PW6-Dr. N. H. Girish, one Rudreshamma took treatment from him. In fact, the name of PW2 is Lokeshamma. But

¶90

the prosecution has not clarified that Rudreshamma is none other than Lokeshamma. Further, PW6 referred PWs.2 and 3 for higher treatment, but they failed to take further treatment. PW6 further stated that the injuries mentioned in Wound Certificates-Exs.P4 and P5 were caused four to five days prior to the incident which clearly establishes that the swelling or pain as mentioned in Exs.P4 and P5 caused four to five days prior to the incident. It shows that prior to the alleged incident, there

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶93

was old scar on the person of PW3. It shows that in order to falsely implicate the accused, PWs.1 to 3 have made general and omnibus allegations against the accused as PW3 is the only daughter to PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 with regard to injuries sustained by PWs.2 and 3 are not corroborated with medical evidence.

¶94

After giving careful thought on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, PW1-complainant, in his complaint, has stated that he along with his wife had gone to the house of the accused to enquire him as to why he left his job, but in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 before the trial Court, they have deposed that PWs.1 and 2 had gone to the house of the accused to enquire him as to why he assaulted their daughter, PW3. Thus, there are material contradictions in this regard. However, as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,

¶95

the accused assaulted PW1 with his hands and PW3 with MO1-club, but they have not described on which part of the body, they sustained injuries. Simply, they have stated

¶96

14 -

¶97

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶98

that the accused assaulted them and he intentionally insulted them. Thereby, they have made general and omnibus allegations against the accused. The trial Court, on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. There is no clear, corroborative and consisting evidence against the accused to attract Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and thus, he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶99

O R D E R

¶100

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed .

¶101

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 7-11-2013 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Honnali, in Criminal

¶102

Case No.517 of 2007 which is confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere,

¶103

15 -

¶104

NC: 2023:KHC:43892 CRL.RP No. 1304 of 2015

¶105

in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2014 dated 5-9-2015 are hereby set aside.

¶106

iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶107

iv. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.

¶108

v. Bail bond of the petitioner stands cancelled.

¶109

Registry is directed to send back the trial Court

¶110

records with a copy of this order, forthwith.

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

KVK

¶113

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

R Sateesh v. State by Honnali Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Sateesh v. State by Honnali Police Station

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

Muddumadaiah Vs B Jyothi

M/S. Crystal Computers Vs M/S. Caps Computers India Private Limited

Smt. Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. C.H. Usman Vs the State of Karnataka

K R Govindarao Vs K Vijay Kumar

K R Govindarao Vs K Vijay Kumar