Partly allowed

T Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2023CRL.RP/470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRL.RP 470 of 2022, the Karnataka High Court modified a Sessions Court order remanding a case under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 IPC. The Court held the trial court should re-mark exhibits but not re-conduct the trial, directing dismissal of the revision regarding the 're-trial' directive.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Court order modified; Trial Court directed to re-mark exhibits and dispose the case; re-trial directive quashed.

T Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 470 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. SRINIVAS S/O. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.22, 5^TH CROSS, SIDDAPAJI NILAYA ISHWAIRAIAH LAYOUT KUVEMPUNAGAR, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BANGALORE-560052.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN PS BANGALORE-560004 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.

¶13

(BY SRI.K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE

¶16

¶17

CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-72) IN CRL.A.NO.235/2017 REMANDING THE MATTER FOR FRESH TRIAL AND JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.10493/2009 DATED 10.02.2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 506 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed by LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72) in Crl.A.No.235/2017 insofar as it relates to directing the Trial Court to re-conduct the trial and dispose off the matter.

¶22

The petitioner was accused No.1 in

¶23

CC.No.10493/2009 and was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence convicted

¶24

the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The petitioner filed an appeal before

¶25

¶26

CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022

¶27

the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after considering the

¶28

material on record noticed that the trial Court had marked wrong exhibits and relying upon such exhibits, had disposed off the case. The Sessions Court while disposing off the appeal observed that "considering this aspect and the arguments adduced by the parties and on the observations made, it is a fit case to remand the trial Court for consideration and to dispose off the case in accordance with law by giving opportunity to both the parties and to make the correction of the document which are marked during the evidence and in the judgment which do no tally with one another." After holding so, shockingly, the Sessions Court held at one breath that the appeal is liable to be dismissed but in the operative portion held that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the case was remitted back to the Trial Court. However, Sessions Court directed the Trial Court to re-conduct the trial and dispose off the matter. It is this portion of the order of the Appellate Court that the petitioner is aggrieved of.

¶29

¶30

CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022

¶31

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the

¶32

mistake was in marking the exhibits and the trial in the case was already completed and therefore there is no question of conducting a re-trial.

¶33

The learned HCGP on the other hand contended

¶34

that the exhibits were wrongly marked and therefore, it was necessary that the trial was re-conducted in the case.

¶35

I have considered the submission made by the petitioner and the respondent.

¶36

It is seen from the order passed by the Appellate

¶37

Court that the learned Public Prosecutor has filed a memo to the following effect:

¶38

"F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ¤UÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå 2 £ÉÃ J¹JªÀiïJªÀiï £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. PÀ®A 498 J, 323 , 506 r/w 34 gÀrAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ¤UÉ ²PÉë«¢¹zÀÝ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ C¦Ã®Ä ¸ÀzÀj DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄªÀÅ wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃqÀÄªÁUÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ¥ÀgÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁzÀ

¶39

¶40

CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022

¶41

zÁR8ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ zÁR8ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤±Á£É 1 zÀÆgÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 2 ªÀÄºÀdgï, ¤±Á£É 3 ªÀÄÄZÀÑ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 4 ®UÀß ¥ÀwæPÉ, ¤±Á£É 5 jAzÀ 7 ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 8 ºÉÃ½PÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ, ¥Áæ.¸Á. 1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ°è ¤±Á£É 1 zÀÆgÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 2 ªÀÄºÀdgï, ¤±Á£É 3 DªÀÄAvÀæt ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 4 ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 5 «PÉÆÖÃjAiÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 6 dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8 ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¤±Á£É 9 ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ, ¤±Á£É 10 ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À, ¤±Á£É 11 DzÉÃ±À gÉÆÃeï £ÁªÉÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.10.2000 JAzÀÄ ¥Áæ.¸Á .1 gÀªÀjAzÀ ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÉÃ jÃw ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¥À.ªÀ.ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É 9 (C.W.10 P.W.11) gÀªÀgÀ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (C.W.12 P.W.12) «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ ºÉÃ½PÉ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É 11 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤±Á£É 9 ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ EzÀÄ eÉgÁPÀì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÉßÃ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÉÆvÉUÉ ¤±Á£É ¦ 11 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 11 ¸ÀºÀ eÉgÁPÀì ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉ ¤±Á£ÉAiÀiÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¸À8ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

¶42

Therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in

¶43

allowing the appeal and remitting back the case to the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court have ought not to have directed the trial Court to re-conduct a trial and dispose off the case.

¶44

¶45

CRL.RP No. 470 of 2022

¶46

In view of the matter, the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.235/2017 is modified and the Trial Court is directed to re-mark the exhibits as per the evidence adduced before it and thereafter dispose off the case in accordance with law as against the petitioner herein. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on 23.01.2023.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

T Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Srinivas v. the 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

Xavier v G Vs K v Kunhikannan

Mr. K. Sathish Kumar Vs Sri Ashok Kumar

T H Manjunatha Vs v Venkateshwara

Sri Maribasappa Vs Sri P Balaraju

Sri Khaja Moinuddin Vs Sri G S Jagadeesh Kumar

Smt Bhavya C Vs Smt N Parvathamma