Allowed

Naveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2023CRL.RP/1416/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentencing orders. The Court acquitted the petitioner as the prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint and provided insufficient independent corroboration of the incident.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside; the petitioner is acquitted of the charges.

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1416 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAVEEN KUMAR S/O SHIVABASAVAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, R/OF CHANNAPPANAPALYA, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 226.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH.B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANDANAKERE POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY IN C.C.NO.491/2013, DATED 26.12.2015 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.A.NO.10003/2016, DATED 02.11.2018 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶17

¶18

CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, who is the sole accused has preferred this criminal revision petition, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2015 in C.C.No.491/2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for brevity) and judgment dated 02.11.2018 in Crl.A.No.10003/2016 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ for brevity).

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶24

Brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition as revealed from the records are, on 21.05.2013 at about 4:00 p.m., on the road running in front of mini water tank situated opposite to the house of Kanthamma at Channappanapalya village, within the jurisdiction of Handanakere Police Station, the petitioner herein wrongfully

¶25

3 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶26

restrained PW.1 saying that he wants her and he also forcibly hugged her, when she resisted his act, he not only abused her in a filthy language, he also tore her blouse and slapped her and further threatened to kill her. In respect of this incident, a police complaint was lodged on 23.05.2013 at about 12:30 p.m., and based on the said complaint, the Handanakere Police registered the FIR in Crime No.44/2013 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. The Police thereafterwards investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner claim to be tried before the trial Court for the aforesaid offences.

¶27

In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined in all seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the petitioner, he had not led any defence evidence or got marked any documents in support of his defence.

¶28

The trial Court heard arguments on both sides and by its judgment and order dated 26.12.2015, held that

¶29

¶30

CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶31

the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC and convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay fine of Rs.1,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Petitioner was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month respectively.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.10003/2016 before the V Additional District and

¶33

5 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶34

Sessions Judge, Tiptur, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 02.11.2018. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the petitioner. He submits that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have erred in relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 for passing an order of conviction against the petitioner. He further submits that the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint has not been properly explained and no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the allegation against the petitioner and therefore, the Courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the revision petition.

¶36

Per contra, learned HCGP supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that PWs.1 and 2 have clearly supported the

¶37

6 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶38

prosecution case and there is nothing on record to disbelieve them. She also submits that the delay in lodging the complaint has been properly explained by the prosecution and this aspect has been considered by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. She submits that in the cases of this nature, normally there would be delay for lodging the complaint as the victim immediately cant take a decision to lodge the complaint. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶39

The alleged incident had taken place on 21.05.2013 at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. The complaint has been lodged on 23.05.2013 in respect of this incident before the Handanakere Police Station, which is about 14 kilometers away from the place of the incident. The material on record would goes to show that PWs.1 and 2 are working in Anganvadi and both of them are educated ladies. In the complaint, there is no whisper about the reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. However, before the Court, PW.1 has sought to explain the delay in lodging the complaint by stating that immediately after the incident, she and PW.2

¶40

7 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶41

had approached the villagers, who have advised them not to file complaint immediately in this regard and a Panchayat was also held. This explanation is not found in the complaint lodged before the police. Moreover, the police have not recorded the statement of any of the villagers who had participated in such Panchayat nor any of the witness was examined before the trial Court to show that such Panchayat was held and the villagers advised PWs.1 and 2 not to lodge complaint immediately after the incident and therefore, there has been delay of nearly two days in filing the complaint. It is settled law that delay in lodging the police complaint would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to explain the inordinate delay of nearly two days in lodging the complaint and that too when PWs.1 and 2 are educated ladies.

¶42

Petitioner's brother has allegedly lodged a complaint against PWs.1 and 2 with regard to some allegations of misappropriation in Anganvadi. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that PWs.1 and 2 with ulterior motive have falsely implicated the

¶43

8 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶44

petitioner in a criminal case cannot be brushed aside. Moreover, undisputedly, the complaint has been written by PW.2 and PW.1 has only affixed her signature to the said complaint. PW.1 is also an educated lady and no reason has been assigned by her as to why the complaint was written by PW.2. Further, admittedly, when the alleged incident took place, PW.2 was not present in the scene. It is only after hearing PW.1 shouting, she came to the spot and raised a cry and upon hearing her, PW.3 who was allegedly in her house, came to the spot and saved the victim from the clutches of the petitioner.

¶45

PW.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has denied that he was in the house of PW.2 when the alleged incident took place and he has also denied that upon hearing PWs.1 and 2 shout, he had come to the spot and saved them. The spot mahazar shows that the house of one Kanthamma is situated near the place of the incident. The police have not recorded the statement of said Kanthamma and the prosecution has also not examined any other independent witnesses of the village to prove the

¶46

9 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶47

alleged incident. Except PWs.1 and 2, no other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW.3, during course of his examination-in-chief has also refused to identify MO.1. PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch witnesses for the seizure and spot mahazar have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated hostile. Nothing material has been elicited from them during their cross-examination by the prosecution. PWs.6 and 7 are the Police Officers who have filed the charge sheet in the case and also registered the FIR respectively. Therefore, the only material witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged charges against the petitioner would be PWs.1 and 2. Having regard to the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, which has not been properly explained and taking into consideration the materials on record, which would goes to show that PWs.1 and 2 had a ill-will against the petitioner as the brother of the petitioner had lodged the criminal case against them with regard to the alleged misappropriation by them in the Anganvadi, I am of the considered view that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were not justified in

¶48

10 - CRL.RP No. 1416 of 2018

¶49

convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences by solely placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which have been challenged in this revision petition are not sustainable. Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶52

The judgment and order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Crl.A.No.10003/2016 dated 02.11.2018 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli in C.C.No.491/2013 dated 26.12.2015 are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences for which he was charged.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Naveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka by

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

D.S. Parashivu Vs M/S. Associated Electrical Agencies

Commandant (Retd) Balasubramanian Mohan Vs Ms G Sree Vidhya

M/S Millan Polymers (P)Ltd Vs Sri Vikas B Kukreja

S Kushal Vs State by N R Pura Police Station

Sri C D Vinay Prasad Vs Sri N D Murthy

Sri. Yogesh Rai Vs Sri P S Gangadharappa