Dismissed

Amith v. D P Murugesh

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2023CRL.RP/284/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging an acquittal in a prosecution for assault. The court found the trial court justified in acquitting the respondents due to serious doubts regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident within the shop, emphasizing that benefit of doubt should be extended.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.

Amith Vs D P Murugesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRL.R.P. NO. 284 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AMITH S/O H.B. HRISHIKESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O BASAPPA HARDWARE SOMWARPET TOWN TALUK SOMWARPET DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 236.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRADHEEP K.C., AMICUS CURIAE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

D.P. MURUGESH

¶13

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

¶14

S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC:DRIVER R/O DODDAMALTHE VILLAGE TALUK SOMWARPET DITRICT - MADIKERI - 571 236.

¶15

B.R. SHUBHAKARA S/O B.K. RACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NO. W-110 JANATHA COLONY SOMWARPET TOWN TALUK SOMWARPET DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 236.

¶16

P.A. GIRISHA S/O ADIMULAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O C/O B R SHUBHAKARA NO. W- 110, JANATHA COLONY SOMWARPET TOWN TALUK SOMWARPET DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 236.

¶17

STATE KARNATAKA BY SOMWARPET POLICE STATION

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶20

SOMWARPET, DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 236 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-4)

¶23

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 8.8.2013 PASSED BY THE S.J., KODAGU AT MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.4/2008 WHEREIN RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 447, 326, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC has been filed by the complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Madikeri, in S.C.No.4/2008, wherein the respondents herein have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 447, 326, 307 read with 34 IPC.

¶27

Heard the Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶28

¶29

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶30

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition as revealed from the records for the purpose of disposal of this petition are, on 28.12.2006, a crane was taken for the purpose of demolishing the wall of the godown belonging to CW-3 - H.B.Hrishikesh who was running a hardware workshop adjacent to the godown. CW-1 - Amith Hrishikesh S/o H.B.Hrishikesh who was in the shop having heard the sound of demolition, had gone to the spot and returned back to the shop. At that time, suddenly the respondents herein who are local taxi drivers all of a sudden entered into the shop, picked up iron rods which were lying there and started assaulting CW-1 - Amith Hrishikesh with the iron rods on his head, back and waist. Unable to bear the pain, CW-1 ran away from the shop and the accused persons allegedly chased him. At that time, one Harisha and CW-2 - M.J.Johnson rescued CW-1 and the respondents upon seeing the said Harisha and Johnson, threw away the rods at that place and went away. Immediately thereafter, CW-1 was shifted to Government Hospital, Somwarpet, and his statement was recorded in the hospital by the police between 9 to 10 p.m. and based on the same, a case in Crime No.148/2006 was registered against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 307 read with 34 IPC.

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶33

The police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 326, 307 read with 34 IPC. The accused persons, on receipt of summons, had appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses as PWs-1 to 9 and got marked nine documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9 and also marked three material objects as MOs.1 to 3. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.PC denied the incriminating evidence available against them and they had also examined four defence witnesses as DWs-1 to 4 and got marked four documents as Exs.D-1 to D-4. The Trial Court, thereafter, heard the arguments on both sides and by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2013 had acquitted the accused for the alleged offences and being aggrieved by the same, the complainant - CW-1 has preferred this revision petition.

¶34

Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the eye-witnesses including the injured have supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondent. He submits that the incident in

¶35

¶36

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶37

question cannot be disputed so also the injuries suffered by PW-1. The doctors - PWs-7 & 8 who had examined and treated PW-1, have supported the case of the prosecution and the wound certificate issued by them was also produced, and therefore, there was no justification for acquitting the respondents for the alleged offences. He submits that the presence of the accused persons at the spot has been admitted by them in their statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, and therefore, the evidence of DWs-1 to 4 looses relevance, and accordingly, prays to allow the revision petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of assault. He also submits that the material on record would give rise to a serious doubt that PW-1 was assaulted by the respondents and he had suffered grievous injuries. He also submits that having regard to the averments made in the private complaint filed by PW-2 - father of PW-1 and in his initial complaint/statement at Ex.P-2 which was received in the police station even prior to the registration of FIR, the very incident alleged becomes doubtful. He submits that it is under these circumstances, the Trial Court has

¶39

¶40

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶41

acquitted the accused of the alleged offences and the said view taken by the Trial Court cannot be termed as perverse or illegal, and therefore, no interference is called for in this revision petition, and he, accordingly prays to dismiss the same.

¶42

PW-1 has stated in his complaint at Ex.P-1 that on 28.12.2006 at about 7 p.m. when he was in his father's hardware shop at Somwarpet, he heard the sound of demolition and therefore he went to the spot and returned to the shop and at that time, the accused came inside the shop and assaulted him with iron rods causing him grievous injuries. The statement of PW-1 which had resulted in registration of FIR against the accused for the alleged offences was recorded by the police between 9 to 10 p.m.

¶43

Ex.D-2 is the document produced by the defence and a perusal of the same would go to show that the said document is a representation given by PW-2 who is the father of PW-1, requesting the police to give police protection to his shop on the ground that he apprehends danger to his life and property from certain persons. Ex.D-2 is dated 28.12.2006 and the Inspector of Police who had received the same in the police

¶44

¶45

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶46

station has been examined as PW-9 before the Trial Court and

¶47

he has stated that Ex.D-2 was received by him in the police station at about 8.40 p.m. In the said representation, there is no mention about the incident that had taken place in his shop as alleged in the statement of PW-1. Therefore, a serious doubt arises with regard to the averments made in Ex.P-1 by the complainant - PW-1.

¶48

In addition to the above, a reading of private complaint - Ex.D-1 which was filed by PW-2 before the jurisdictional Magistrate would go to show that PW-2 was also present on 28.12.2006 at 7.00 p.m. in his shop, but he does not state in his private complaint about the incident that had allegedly taken place inside the shop, wherein the accused persons after trespassing into the shop had allegedly assaulted PW-1 with iron rods. Therefore, the very happening of the alleged incident inside the shop becomes highly doubtful.

¶49

DW-4 is the Inspector of Police, Somwarpet, who has filed the charge sheet pursuant to the investigation in the private complaint filed by PW-2 which was referred by the jurisdictional Magistrate to the police for the purpose of investigation. He has stated that he had registered Crime

¶50

¶51

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶52

No.1/2007 pursuant to a reference order for the offences under Sections 144, 147, 148, 201, 447, 427 & 506 read with 149 IPC and in the charge sheet, it has been mentioned that the accused persons named in the private complaint including the respondents herein had formed an unlawful assembly near the godown of PW-2 and they caused damage to the cement bags and other material kept in the godown amounting to Rs.2,70,000/- and also threatened to kill PW-2. After filing of the charge sheet, the case is now registered against all the accused persons in C.C.No.449/2008. From the evidence of DW-4, it is very clear that no such incident as alleged by PW-1 in his complaint had taken place on 28.12.2006.

¶53

It is the defence of the accused persons that there was a group clash and PW-1 would have sustained injuries in the same. It is not in dispute that on 28.12.2006 demolition of godown belonging to PWs-2 was undertaken and there was a group clash concerning the said incident, and therefore, the defence of the accused appears to be quite probable.

¶54

The Trial Court having appreciated all these aspects of the matter, has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable

¶55

¶56

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶57

doubt and accordingly, has acquitted the respondents. The Trial Court has also observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution creates a doubt in the mind of the court, and therefore, the benefit of doubt is required to be extended to the accused, and as a consequence of the same, they have been acquitted.

¶58

It is trite law that as against the judgment and order of acquittal, even if a second view is possible, the appellate/revisional court should be slow while interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal. In the present case, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, a serious doubt arises with the regard to the incident that allegedly had taken place inside the shop as contended by PW-1, and therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused extending the benefit of doubt in their favour.

¶59

Therefore, I find no good reasons to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶60

10 -

¶61

CRL.RP No. 284 of 2014

¶62

The services of Amicus Curiae Sri Pradeep.K.C., is

¶63

appreciated and his fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

Amith v. D P Murugesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amith v. D P Murugesh

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

Sri D C Ramu Vs Sri Singri Gowda

Sri G Nagaraju Vs State by Cpi

Sridhara Ganiga Vs M/S Sri Sudhindra Finance

Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Nanjesh Gowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. K. B. Ananda Vs Sri. K. S. Nagaraju