Partly allowed

Sri Chandrappa @ Veerappan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023CRL.RP/216/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal revision petition in part. It held that the explanation for delay in filing the complaint was valid. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC were set aside as evidence was insufficient. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC were upheld.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence for Section 323 IPC set aside; conviction and sentence for Section 354 IPC upheld.

Sri Chandrappa @ Veerappan Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 216 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHANDRAPPA @ VEERAPPAN, S/O HANUMANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLSAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 5

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KEMPE GOWDA C.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY: THALAKU POLICE, THALAKU, BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED: 03.11.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE

¶16

¶17

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶18

(JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MOLAKALMURU IN C.C.NO.51/2008 AND JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CRL.APPEAL NO.86/2010.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the Judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Molakalmuru, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in C.C. No.51/2008, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC. He has also challenged the Judgment dated 15.02.2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.86/2010 by which the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court was confirmed.

¶22

¶23

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶24

The records disclose that on the complaint of PW.1,

¶25

criminal prosecution was initiated against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC in Crime No.126/2007 (later re-numbered as C.C. No.51/2008). The prosecution claimed that on 05.12.2007 at about 10.30 a.m., when PW.1 was harvesting long beans in her land in resurvey No.29 of Mallasamudra village, the petitioner went behind her and covered her face and assaulted her with his hands, strangled her, pinned her down and attempted to rape her. The case was investigated and the statement of the panch witness, statements of the husband of the complainant, a labourer in the neighbouring land, the brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant were recorded. The statements of the Doctor who examined the complainant and the head constable who arrested the petitioner were recorded and the statement of the Police Sub-Inspector who registered the case and filed chargesheet was recorded. The Investigating officer filed a chargesheet against the petitioner alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC. The copy of the chargesheet was handed over

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶28

to the petitioner and he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution led in evidence of PWs.1 to 10 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P17 and M.O. No.1, which were the glass pieces of the victim recovered at the spot of the incident. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.’) who denied the incriminating evidence against him.

¶29

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the charges against the petitioner herein beyond doubt and that the petitioner herein was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC and consequently convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and one year for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶32

Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and

¶33

sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner filed Crl.A. No.86/2010.

¶34

The Appellate Court secured the records, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner herein as well as the prosecution and after framing points for consideration, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present revision petition is filed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence was allegedly committed on 05.12.2007 while the complaint was lodged nearly 5 days thereafter i.e., on 10.12.2007 at 8.45 p.m. He submitted that the prosecution did not establish any reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. He also contended that the Police Station was situate within 10 Kms. from the place of the alleged offence and therefore, the case presented by the prosecution was doubtful. He contended that the petitioner was engaged as a coolie in the land

¶37

¶38

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶39

belonging to the complainant and her family and due to differences between the petitioner and PW.1 and her family, a false complaint was lodged.

¶40

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that PW.1 had stated the reason for not lodging the complaint in time. He contended that PW.1 specifically mentioned that the elders in the village had assured to resolve the issue but they did not and therefore, PW.1 had filed a belated complaint. He submitted that the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6 established beyond doubt that the petitioner had in fact assaulted PW.1 and molested her. He submitted that the injuries found on PW.1 were corroborated by the evidence of PW.7. He, therefore, contended that the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the Appellate Court are just and proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court in this revision.

¶41

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader. I have also perused the records of

¶42

¶43

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶44

the Trial Court as well as its Judgment and the Judgment of the Appellate Court.

¶45

PW.1 in her complaint at Ex.P1 had stated that soon after the offence was committed on 05.12.2007, she informed PW.5 (her brother-in-law) who along with PW.3 (husband of the complainant) informed the elders in the village who agreed to mediate and settle the issue. PW.3 is the husband of the complainant who was not present in the village at the time of the incident. PW.1 was treated by PW.7-Doctor on 06.12.2007 at 10.30 a.m. and he found that PW.1 had suffered (i) scratch mark over the right forearm with no bleeding (ii) tenderness over the front of the neck and (iii) scratch mark over the right cheek. In the wound certificate at Ex.P3, it was stated before PW.7 that the injuries were caused by a person named Chandra on 05.12.2007. PW.3 deposed that between 06.12.2007 till 10.12.2007, attempts were made by the elders in the village to settle the dispute, however, the petitioner did not turn up but on the contrary, about 50 persons representing the petitioner turned up at the Panchayat and therefore, there was no settlement of the issue. It was only thereafter that the

¶46

¶47

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶48

complaint was lodged on 10.12.2007. The contention of the petitioner that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and therefore, the prosecution is vitiated is unacceptable since PW.1 in her complaint itself mentioned the reason for the delay and the reason for such delay was sufficiently corroborated by PW.3.

¶49

It is now well settled that mere delay in lodging a complaint cannot vitiate the prosecution if such delay is explained properly. In the present case, PW.1 did mention to PW.7 that the injuries were caused due to the assault by the accused on 05.12.2007. Taking into account, the social milieu from which the petitioner and PW.1–victim hailed, it is not improbable, that they attempted to amicably resolve the issue. On the failure to resolve the issue, the complaint in question was lodged on 10.12.2007. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the delay in lodging the complaint should vitiate the prosecution, is liable to be rejected.

¶50

Now, coming to the question whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, the PW.1

¶51

¶52

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶53

– victim had suffered the injuries mentioned above. PW.1 deposed that the petitioner covered her face, strangled her and pinned her down to the ground and attempted to commit rape. Therefore, it is quite possible that the injuries suffered by PW.1 could have been caused when PW.1 tried to extricate herself from the clutches of the petitioner. The nature of the injuries do not indicate any intention on the part of the petitioner to cause hurt to PW.1 and therefore, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is not justified.

¶54

In so far as the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned, PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 consistently deposed about the petitioner molesting and outraging the modesty of PW.1. Though PW.3 and PW.5 are hearsay witnesses, yet they were the ones with whom PW.1 could have confided and they have corroborated the testimony of PW.1. The recovery of the broken pieces of the glass bangle of PW.1 from the spot of the crime corroborates the statement of PW.1 in her complaint as well as in her deposition. PW.1 identified the petitioner as the one who

¶55

10 -

¶56

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶57

covered her face and attempted to commit rape. There was no evidence to establish that PW.1 was attempting to implicate the petitioner in the case and that there was no justification for the same. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is justified and the Trial Court has sieved the evidence and has rightly returned a finding of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶58

In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed in part. The Judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Molakalmuru, in C.C. No.51/2008 in so far as it relates to convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and the consequent sentence imposed on him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months are set aside. However, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and the consequent sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year is upheld. Consequently, the Judgment

¶59

11 -

¶60

CRL.RP No. 216 of 2014

¶61

dated 15.02.2014 passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.86/2010 is modified to that extent.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

sma

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Chandrappa @ Veerappan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrappa @ Veerappan 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

M/S Ariatex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ganesh Tempo Service

L.N Shivashankar Vs State by Koramangala P.S

Dhananjaya.G Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri.Natarajanayaka Vs Sri.Abdul @ Chand

Smt Chinnama B B Vs Shri Kumara H M

School Development Committee Vs State of Karnataka