State's revision against appellate court's dismissal of appeal challenging acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 3 in an assault case. High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of both courts below and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)
AND:
MANGALURU - 574 199.
MANGALURU - 574 199.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, FOR SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY .K., ADVOCATES)
NC: 2024:KHC:13536 CRL.RP No. 1306 of 2015
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.91/2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALURU AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE APPELLATE COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this revision petition against the common judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.91/2014 by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short).
On 07.05.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., complainant and other two persons were doing coolie work in the land of one Smt. Jessy D'Souza. At that time, the respondent/accused along with accused No.2 came to the spot having formed a common intention, picked up quarrel and assaulted the complainant and his brother PW.2 by hands, A2 assaulted
with sickle thereby causing hurt and grievous injury. It is further alleged that the accused also abused the complainant and his brothers. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against these respondents/accused along with another person arraigned as accused No.2 before the jurisdictional police station. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant i.e. Sri. Shankar Kottary, Konaje Police have registered the case in Crime No.23/2000 against three accused namely, Sugandi, Geetha and Rajeev for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323,325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the investigating officer has submitted a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the case was registered in CC.No.94/2000 on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru. The Trial Court has framed charges against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the substance of accusation was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
NC: 2024:KHC:13536 CRL.RP No. 1306 of 2015
were examined as PWs.1 to 6, six documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P6 and one material object was got marked as M.O.1. On closure of evidence of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Civil Procedure was recorded. Accused has denied totally the evidence on behalf of execution. On hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 3 and convicted accused No.2 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default she shall undergo S.I. for a period of 2 years 6 months. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by accused No.2, the State has preferred the appeal before the Prl. Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru in Crl.A.Nos.91/2014 and 92/2014. Accused No.2 has also preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.282/2009. All these appeals were clubbed together and common judgment was passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing all the appeals. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, the
State has preferred the appeal against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.91/2014. But the State has not preferred any revision against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.92/2014 and accused No.2 has also not preferred any revision against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.282/2009.
appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has proved the case through evidence of PWs.1 to 4 among them PWs.1 and 2 are the injured witnesses, Pws.3 and 4 are the eyewitness and the same has been corroborated by PW.5 who is the Medical Officer who has treated the injured immediately after the incident and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. The prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that the above said accused respondents came along with accused No.2 abused the complainant and his brother and assaulted them with by their hands and they had formed an common intention. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:13536 CRL.RP No. 1306 of 2015
perusal of entire records, the following points would arise for my consideration:
Point No.1: in the negative
Point No.2: as per final order
Regarding point No.1:
To prove the case of prosecution in all six witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6 and six documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P6 and one material object was got marked as M.O.1. PWs.1 and 2 are the injured and PWs.3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.4 has not supported the
case of prosecution. PW.5 is the doctor who treated the injured. PW.6 is the investigating officer in the matter. Ex.P1 is the complaint in which it has stated that on 07.05.2000 at about 8.30 a.m., when the complainant and his elder brother Vishwanath Kottary and Jessy D.Souza were doing work in their house. The accused Rajeeva instructed them to stop the work as the site belongs to them. Then the galata took place between them. Then Sugandi who is accused No.2 and also the sister of accused No.1 Rajeeva came and assaulted the elder brother of the complainant with sword. Again, when she tried to assault his elder brother, then the complainant prevented from making assault on his brother. As a result of which, the complainant received injuries on his right hand near elbow and accused have also assaulted the complainant and his brother with their hands. Thereafter, one Isubu came to the spot and then accused went along with his sisters to home and the complainant and his elder brother took treatment in hospital and filed complaint against the accused for commission of alleged offences. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. On careful examination of entire evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:13536 CRL.RP No. 1306 of 2015
on record, I do not find any illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding point No.2:
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3, confirmed by the Appellate Court, is illegal and improper and needs interference?
What order should be passed?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
The State of Karnataka by State Public Prosecutor
B Rajeeva (A-1)
Geetha (A-3)
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
