Allowed

Varale Saroja @ Saroja v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.A/91/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction of accused No.6 for offences under Sections 143, 148, 307 and 353 read with 149 IPC arising from an alleged naxal attack on police. No identification parade was held, her name was absent from seized lists and complaint, and no recovery was made from her; the High Court acquitted her.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 26.11.2011 convicting the appellant set aside; appellant acquitted of Sections 143, 148, 307, 353 r/w 149 IPC; bail bond discharged.

Varale Saroja @ Saroja Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VARALE SAROJA @ SAROJA D/O SINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS VARALE , KATTINA KUNTRIMANE MEGUR VILLAGE,KOPPA TALUK CHIKMAGALUR.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. KASHINATH J D.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORBY SRINGERI POLICE STATION.

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.11.11 PASSED BY THE ADDL.SJ, CHIKMAGALURE IN S.C.NO.132/09-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143,148,307 AND 353 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO UDERGO S.I.FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307 OF IPC AND SHE SHALL ALSO PAY A FINE OF RS.3,000/- IN

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶18

DEFAULT, SHE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS S.I AND ETC.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

¶20

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru in S.C.No.132/2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused No.6 for the offence punishable under Sections 143,148, 307, 353 read with section 149 IPC.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the Police Inspector of DCRB, Chikkamagaluru, head of the Special Squad formed to control the naxal activities within the jurisdiction of

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶27

Shringeri Police Station, on receiving an information about the naxal activities, went to Tharollikodige Barkana view point on 11.10.2004 at about 10a.m., along with other Police personnel, and at that time, 30 - 40 persons both men and women, forming an unlawful assembly, holding rifle, bombs, explosive substances etc., tried to attack them and also fired at the Police and then shouting slogans against the Government, escaped from the spot and ran inside the forest.

¶28

In order to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused No.6, the prosecution, in all, examined 10 witnesses and got marked 10 documents and material object, MO.1 i.e., the articles seized and kept in P.R. No.44/2007.

¶29

Among the prosecution witnesses, PWs.1,2 and 10 are the Police officials who have gone to the spot. They have spoken about the incident in question. PW.3 speaks about the arrest of one of the accused by name Mallika @ Kavitha. PW.4 is Deputy Superintendent of Police, who deposed about verifying and destroying the seized explosive substances. PW.5 and PW.9 are the Investigation Officers who have conducted investigation in this case. PWs.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶32

to the seizure mahazar, Exhibits P-4 and P-2 respectively. Out of the said witnesses, PW.6, panch witness to Ex.P-4 has turned hostile. PW.8 is the Head Constable, Shringeri Police Station, who registered the case on receiving the complaint - Ex.P-1 from PW.1.

¶33

A perusal of Ex.P-1 lodged by PW.1 shows that, when PW.1 and other Police Personnel went to the spot, there were 30 to 40 men and women, who tried to attack the Police and fired at them. PWs.1, 2 and 10 have stated that even the appellant/accused No.6 was also present among them. It is relevant to see that in Ex.P-1, the description or identity of the accused persons especially of the appellant herein are not given. It is only stated that there were about 30 to 40 people present at the spot, who had formed an unlawful assembly and abused the Police, shouted and fired at them etc., It is stated that thereafter, all of them ran inside the forest and escaped.

¶34

PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not mentioned either in Ex.P-1 or in his further statement about the name of the appellant. He has further admitted that there was no Test Identification Parade conducted and

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶37

appellant/accused No.6 was not shown to him or to other Police Personnel and they have not identified her.

¶38

Similarly, PW.2 has admitted that it is difficult to identify the lady who shouted at them. Though he has stated that accused No.6 was also present, at another breath, he has stated that he is not aware as to which direction the said accused ran away. It is relevant to mention that PW.2 has spoken about the duty list of the naxalites which was seized from the spot under a mahazar. He has admitted that in the said list, the name of accused No.6, the appellant herein was not mentioned but the names of other persons were mentioned.

¶39

Similarly, PW.10 has stated in the cross-examination that in the Sentry List which was seized, the name of one Sarala was mentioned and the name of the present appellant was not mentioned. He has stated that he is unable to say as to which of the accused tried to fire at the Police.

¶40

Admittedly, the appellant/accused No.6 is a stranger to PW.1, PW.2 and PW.10. According to Ex.P-1, there were 30 to 40 persons when PW.1 and other Police went to

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶43

apprehend them. All of them are alleged to have ran inside the forest. There is no Identification Parade conducted. The say of PWs.1, 2 and 10 that the appellant was present among the said 30 to 40 persons is difficult to believe. The independent panch witnesses were not taken to the spot and therefore, the evidence of the independent witnesses is not available.

¶44

Incriminating materials were seized from the spot. There is no recovery whatsoever at the instance of the appellant. The witnesses have admitted that in the Sentry List which was found at the spot and seized under a mahazar did not contain the name of the appellant. Hence, it cannot be held that the prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted by the Sessions Court in S.C. No.61/2006.

¶45

The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of assumption and presumption, has come to the conclusion that accused No.6 worked as co-accused in the incident and attempted to commit the murder of the Police officials while discharging their duties as public servants. Further held that

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶48

she has cooperated with other accused to commit the offence. The said finding is recorded without any convincing or acceptable evidence against the appellant. The Trial Court itself has observed that no properties are recovered through accused No.6 and she was not in possession of any explosive substances. She has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and under section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶49

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

[i] The appeal is allowed .

¶52

[ii] The judgment and order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagalur in Sessions Case No.134/2009 convicting the appellant/accused No.6 of the offence punishable under sections 143,148, 307 and 353 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the above offences.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:36866 CRL.A No. 91 of 2012

¶55

[iii] The bail bond executed by the appellant shall be

discharged.

Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

JUDGE

Varale Saroja @ Saroja v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varale Saroja @ Saroja 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

Sri Anil Kumar v Vs State of Karnataka

Abeed Ron Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadeva Vs Government of Karnataka

Vijay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivakumar @ Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G Vs State of Karnataka by