Allowed

Raghukumar H @ Madhura v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024CRL.RP/296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against summoning of three persons as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a caste atrocities trial. The High Court held that cross-examination evidence must be considered, set aside the summons order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal in light of Hardeep Singh and Hetram @ Babli.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Section 319 order set aside; matter remitted to Special Judge for fresh disposal regarding the revision petitioners only.

Raghukumar H @ Madhura Vs State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 296 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAGHUKUMAR H @ MADHURA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH R/OF GARAGADAKUPPE VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572120.

¶8

NAGARAJU G B AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O BASAVAIAH R/OF GARAGADAKUPPE VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572120.

¶9

NARASEGOWDA N

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O NARASHIMAIAH R/OF SIGEPALYA VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572120. …PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBUR POLICE, TUMKUR REP BY STATE PUBLIC PREOSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶17

2. BASAVAIAH

¶18

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE TALAGEDARAIAH R/O RAYAVARRU VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR 572120. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP. FOR R1: SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2022 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.175/2017 BY THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF THE IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT HEBBUR POLICE AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT THEREIN UNDER SECTION 319 OF THE CR.P.C.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

¶25

for the revision petitioners, Sri Sharat S.Gowda and

¶26

learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶27

Facts in brief for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶28

The revision petitioners are sought to be summoned

¶29

as additional accused in S.C.No.175/2017 on the file of the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶31

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru by allowing the applications filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶32

The Dy.S.P., Tumakuru Sub-Division, Tumakuru, after thorough investigation in Crime No.135/2016 filed the charge-sheet against Kempegowda, Shanthakumar, Madhura, Nagaraju and Karegowda for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iii)(r), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶33

After summoning the accused persons, charges were framed and accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.

¶34

During the course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1, he has taken out the names of the present revision petitioners who said to have armed with deadly weapons like machet and long also involved in the incident and they assaulted the complainant and other victims.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶37

Based on such evidence placed on record, the

¶38

learned Special Judge summoned the present revision petitioners based on application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The present revision petitioners appeared before the learned Special Judge and filed written objections to the application. Thereafter, learned Special Judge, has allowed the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92.

¶39

The validity of the said order is called in question before this Court in this revision petition.

¶40

Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the revision petitioners contended that whenever a trial judge takes into consideration the material evidence placed on record by the parties, for the purpose of summoning the intended accused in a given case, court is not precluded from considering the entire

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶42

material evidence that would be available against the intended accused persons.

¶43

Therefore, the approach of the learned Special

¶44

Judge in the case on hand is incorrect in allowing the application, ignoring the answers in the elicited crossexamination of the very same witnesses. Therefore, he sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶45

In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶46

HETRAM @ BABLI vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER (Crl.A.No.4656/2024 dated 20.11.2024).

¶47

Per contra, Sri Sharat Gowda, learned counsel representing the de-facto complainant and learned HCGP, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah supports the impugned order.

¶48

They also brought to the notice of the Court that the revision petitioners were summoned before the court and the impugned order came to be passed after considering the objections filed by the present revision

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶51

petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is perfectly justified.

¶52

In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶53

On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that while passing the impugned order, order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HETRAM @ BABLI (supra) was not available before the learned Special Judge for considering the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

¶54

Since there is a change in the position of law and Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that evidence includes the cross-examination of the witnesses as well, a case is made out by the revision petitioners to set aside the impugned order and matter needs to be re-adjudicated in the light of the judgment relied on behalf of the revision petitioners in the case of HETRAM @ BABLI (supra).

¶55

Accordingly, following:

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:49655 CRL.RP No. 296 of 2023

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) Revision petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii) The impugned order is set aside.

¶61

(iii) The matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law only with regard to the present revision petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH (supra) as well as HETRAM @ BABLI

¶62

(supra).

¶63

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶64

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Raghukumar H @ Madhura v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghukumar H @ Madhura v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri K. Rangappa Vs Chinnappa Since Dead by Lrs

Sri G P Ramanna Vs Sri C v Veerabhadrappa Gowda

Sri S T Muniswamappa Vs Smt M Mahalakshmi

M/S Eminence Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. v Vijayakumar

Sri Ranganath H Vs Sri R Prakash

Sri v B Krishnappa Vs Thimmegowda