Dismissed

Chikkalingegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2023CRL.RP/218/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for assault and criminal intimidation filed under Sections 323, 324, 504, and 506 IPC. The High Court refused interference, finding no manifest error in the concurrent lower court judgments, which relied on the evidence of injured witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2014 and 22.12.2015 are confirmed.

Chikkalingegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.218 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, S/O. LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT SOMADEVARA PALYA, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 572 130.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI H ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY KUNIGAL POLICE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PINCODE - 572 130.

¶11

Digitally signed by VINUTHA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.01.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.452/2011, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2015 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMAKUR, IN CRL.A.NO.22/2014.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

Sri H. Ashok Kumar and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned

¶21

HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section

¶23

397 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') praying to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District in C.C. No.452/2011 and the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by learned the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Criminal Appeal No.22/2014 and also prays to allow the petition.

¶24

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

¶25

Brief facts of the prosecution is as under:-

¶26

On 05.04.2011 at 7.00 a.m. in front of the house of PW-2 Siddalingaiah at Somadevarapalya village, he stored

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶29

the firewood and on top of it PW-4 put clothes for drying. At that point of time, accused came there and removed the clothes and thrown in a pit. Hence, PW1, 2 and 4 enquired with the accused, in turn accused abused the PWs-1, 2 and 4 in a filthy language, intentionally insulted them to provoke the breach of their peace, assaulted PW-1 on her hand, on her back, left leg and caused pain and assaulted PW-2 on his back with MO-1 club and caused injuries and also assaulted Rangamma with his hands on her left shoulder, abdomen and left ears and he made criminal intimidation to eliminate them if they repeat the same things. Therefore, PW-3 lodged a complaint against the accused which led to registration of FIR and investigation.

¶30

After receipt of the charge sheet, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences, secured the presence of the accused and framed charges for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and documents got marked as Ex.P1 to P9

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶33

and material object as MO-1. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure

¶34

Code (for short 'Crl.P.C') by the learned Magistrate and after hearing both the sides, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No.22/2014 before the First Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Now aggrieved by the concurrent findings given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that PWs-1, 2 and 4 though injured witness, but they are interested witness. PW-2 or his family members have not filed any complaint before the police, instead PW-3 Prakash the son of brother of PW-2 lodged a complaint.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶37

Therefore, in the absence of the complaint by the victims or their family members, the complaint lodged by PW-3 is not maintainable, however, the trial Court convicted the petitioner, which is not permissible under law. Further, PW-3 is not an eye witness to the incident and is a hearsay witness. It is contended that the prosecution evidence is full of omissions, contradictions and improvements, but the Trial Court failed to consider these aspects and has given undue weightage to the testimonies of interested witness i.e. PW-1 to 4 in the absence of an independent eye witness, especially the oral evidence of PWs-6 and 7. It is contended that as per the evidence of PW-9 Dr. Mamata the injuries mentioned in Exs.P6 to 8 wound certificates, the injuries sustained were simple in nature and victims were treated as out-patient and they were conscious. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is purely based on assumptions and presumptions. Hence, the counsel prays to allow the petition.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶40

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently argued and contended that the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have given concurrent findings based on the oral testimony of PWs-1 to 4 and evidence of PW-9 Dr. Mamata. PWs-1, 2 and 4 have categorically stated that accused voluntarily caused hurt and caused bodily injury and also assaulted with MO-

¶41

1 club and caused simple injury to PW-2. He intentionally insulted PWs-1, 2 and 4 and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate them if they repeat the same things and therefore, based on the oral and medical evidence, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for, thus pray to dismiss the petition.

¶42

Perused the material available on record. As per the evidence of PW-1, on 05.04.2011 at 7 a.m., her mother put their clothes on the firewood in front of their house. Therefore, accused took quarrel with them and insisted them to remove the said clothes, as if said place belong to

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶44

him only. Therefore, PW-4 when enquired about the same in this regard, the accused abused her in a filthy language, intentionally insulted her to provoke her breach of peace. At that time, PW-2 came to the place and enquired about the dispute. Therefore accused also assaulted him with MO-1 club on his back. Hence, PW-4 tried to pacify the quarrel, but, the accused assaulted on her left shoulder, below abdomen and left ear. Thereby, caused simple injury to PWs-1, 2 and 4. As per the evidence of PW2 Siddalingaiah, father of PW-1 and husband of PW-4 on the

¶45

day of incident at 7.00 a.m. she put her clothes on the firewood in front of her house. Therefore, accused took quarrel with PWs-1 and 4 for removal of said clothes and thereafter, he threw them to the drainage, thus PW-2 came to the spot and enquired the accused, the accused assaulted him with MO-1 club. When PW-4 tried to pacify the quarrel, he assaulted him with his hand and leg and caused injury on her left shoulder, below abdomen and left ear.

¶46

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶47

PW-4 Gangamma is another injured witness. In her evidence she has reiterated the averments made in the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. PW-3 Prakash the complainant and son of brother of PW-2, in his evidence he has stated that he reached the spot after couple of minutes, enquired PWs-1, 2 and 4 about the incident and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. PW-5 Chikkanna is the witness to spot Mahazar Ex.P2, has stated that police conducted a spot mahazar in his presence at the spot.

¶48

PW-6 Renuka Prasad and PW-7 Muniswamy are independent eye witnesses but they have turned hostile for the prosecution. PW-8 Channaiah S. Heremath Police Sub-Inspector who registered the case conducted spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet against the accused. PW-9 Dr. Mamata who treated PWs-1, 2 and 4 and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P6 to 8. As per the evidence of PW-9, PWs-1, 2 and 4 sustained simple injuries.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶51

On perusal of the material available on record, PWs-1, 2 and 4 are the injured witnesses, they have clearly stated the manner in which the incident occurred and more particularly, the accused assaulted them with hand, legs and MO-1 club. The evidence of PWs1, 2 and 4 is corroborated with the oral testimony of PW-9 doctor and PW-9 has described the injuries sustained by PWs-1, 2 and 4 which can be seen in Exs.P6 to 8.

¶52

The counsel for petitioner contended that PW-6 and 7 are independent eye witnesses and they have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the instant case, PWs-1, 2 and 4 are injured eye witnesses and they sustained injuries. Merely because independent witnesses turned hostile for the prosecution, the contention raised by the accused cannot be accepted since more weightage to be given to the testimony of the injured witnesses.

¶53

The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. The

¶54

10 -

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶56

evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. Testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in-guarantee of their presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare their actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. The counsel contended that PW.1 to 4 are relatives and hence, their testimony is an interested in nature. Relationship is not sufficient to discredit a witness unless motive to spare the real culprit and implicate an innocent person falsely is shown. In fact close relatives of injured may naturally rush to the scene on hearing alarm of victims, and therefore, relationship will not detract from their evidence.

¶57

The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that PWs-1, 2 and 4 appears to be victims in this case, but they have not lodged a complaint. PW-3 the son of brother of PW-2 lodged a complaint. Hence, same

¶58

11 -

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶60

is not maintainable. First Information Statement is not ordinarily substantive evidence. It can corroborate or contradict the evidence of the informant. A report, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, must be treated as first information under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. It

¶61

does not matter if the person giving information is an eye witness or not. Credibility of eye witness cannot be doubted merely because their names are not mentioned in the complaint. There cannot be suspicion, if first informant is not an eye witness, but a close relative. Therefore, this contention cannot be sustained as PW-3 is

¶62

also one of the relatives of PWs-1, 2 and 4 and as per the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 4, PW-3 took them to the hospital for treatment. Hence, one cannot find fault with the act of PW-3.

¶63

In the case of STATE THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. R. SOUNDIRARASU, in Criminal Appeal 1452-1453 of 2022 dated

¶64

12 -

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶66

5th September 2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶67

'The revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure'.

¶68

On meticulous examination of the evidence available on record, there is no manifest error apparent on the face of the record, either in the judgment of the trial Court or appellate Court. The judgment passed by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

¶69

13 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:44110 CRL.RP No. 218 of 2016

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i) The revision petition is dismissed.

¶73

(ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District in C.C. No.452/2011 and confirmed by the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by learned the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Criminal Appeal No.22/2014, are hereby confirmed.

¶74

(iii) Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records forthwith along with copy of this judgment.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

CHS

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Chikkalingegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkalingegowda 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Sateesh Vs State by Honnali Police Station

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

K R Govindarao Vs K Vijay Kumar

Sri Mohammed Fazal Vs Sri Srinivas Rao

Jayaprakash Pandit S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Poornima Vs Mr S Praveen Suvarna