Allowed

Jayanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2024CRL.RP/577/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused convicted by the first appellate court after acquittal for trespass, hurt, insult and criminal intimidation. The High Court found the appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and restored the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court's acquittal confirmed; appellate court's conviction set aside; petitioners acquitted of offences under Sections 448, 504, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC; fine refundable if paid.

Jayanna Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 577 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAYANNA

¶8

S/O LATE GURUSHIDDAIAH, 63 YEARS,

¶9

SANTHOSH

¶10

S/O JAYANNA, 28 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENTS OF SASALU VILLAGE, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYANAHALLI TALUK-561204.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. S T BIKKANNAVAR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE-572226, REPTD. BY LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP.)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 4.4.2017 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CRL.A.NO.10030/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred revision petition against the judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2017 passed in Crl.Appeal No.10030/2015 by the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short).

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

¶25

The brief facts of the prosecution is that on 29.08.2012 at about 8.00 p.m. when the complainant along with CW.2 was at his house situated at Sasalu village, Shettikere Hobli which comes within the limits of C.N.Halli Police station, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention to quarrel with the complainant entered into the house of the complainant and abused CW.2 in filthy language and voluntarily

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶27

assaulted them and threatened them that to lit fire to the house of the complainant and also given life threat to them, thereby the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 448,504,323,506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.

¶28

After filing of charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and the case was registered in C.C.No.693/2012. In pursuance of the summons, the

¶29

accused have appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. Charge framed and read over and explained to the Accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶30

To prove the guilt of the accused, 6 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6 and 3 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P3. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded against the accused and the accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and do not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf. On

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶32

hearing both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged commission of offence. Being aggrieved by this impugned judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.10030/2015 and the same came to be allowed vide judgment dated 04.04.2017 and the judgment of acquittal dated 22.06.2015 passed in C.C.No.693/2012 by the Court of the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, is set aside. Consequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448,504,323,506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code. Further, they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 448 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Lastly, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 Indian

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶34

Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revision petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court while reversing the order of Trial Court did not explained the reasons to acquit the accused. It is the duty of the Appellate Court to dispel the reasons given for acquittal before reversing such an order of acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in assessing the facts and circumstances under which the complaint came to be lodged. The Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The prosecution has not placed any material to show that PW.1- Siddalingakumar is the owner of the house. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition.

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶37

As against this, learned High Court Government

¶38

Pleader submits that the Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Appellate Court. On this ground, he sought to dismiss the revision petition.

¶39

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶40

following points would arise for my consideration:

¶41

i. Whether the Appellate Court has committed error in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts?

¶42

ii. What order?

¶43

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶44

Point No.1: in affirmative

¶45

Point No.2: as per final order.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶48

Regarding point No.1:

¶49

I have carefully examined the material placed before this Court.

¶50

It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.08.2012 at about 8.00 p.m. when the complainant along with CW.2 was at his house situated at Sasalu village, Shettikere Hobli which comes within the limits of C.N.Halli Police station, the accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention to quarrel with the complainant entered into the house of the complainant and abused CW.2 in filthy language and voluntarily assaulted them and threatened them that to lit fire to the house of the complainant and also given life threat to them. Thus, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the alleged offence.

¶51

According to the case of prosecution, the accused having common intention, has trespassed the house of PW.1. With regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 448 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has not shown the house

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶53

number of the PW.1/complainant. Even the investigating officer has not produced any documents to show that the house in question which is mentioned in Ex.P2 - spot panchanama belongs to the PW.1/complainant. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that PW.1/complainant was the owner of the house in question at relevant point of

¶54

time, at the time of trespassing the house of PW.1/complainant does not arise. With regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 323,504, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code are concerned, in Ex.P1 - complaint, the PW.1/complainant has stated that the accused have abused in filthy language and assaulted them with hands.

¶55

PW.1-Siddalingakumar and PW.2-Ravikumar

¶56

have deposed in their evidence as to the assault made by the accused. After the assault, PWs.1 and 2 have not obtained any medical treatment. The intention and motive of the accused have entered the house of PW.1/complainant has not disclosed in the complaint or in

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶59

the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The investigating

¶60

officer has also not examined by the prosecution. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 23 to 29 as under:

¶61

"23. It is settled law that when allegations of commission of offence under section 323 of IPC is made against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that:

¶62

(1) The accused actually caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant.

¶63

(2) The accused did so with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused.

¶64

Further when the allegations of commission of offence under section 448 of IPC is made against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that:

¶65

(1) The complainant was in possession of the property.

¶66

(2) property consisted of a building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or a building used as place of worship or for custody of property;

¶67

(3) accused entered, into or upon such building, tent or vessel;

¶68

(4) having entered such building, tent or vessel accused remained there unlawfully;

¶69

(5) his intention was to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession.

¶70

Further when the allegations of commission of offence under section 504 of IPC is made against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that:

¶71

(1) that the accused insulted some person;

¶72

(2) that he did so intentionally;

¶73

(3) that he thereby gave provocation to that person;

¶74

(4) that he intended or knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶77

Further when the allegations of commission of offence under section 506 of IPC is made against accused, the prosecution is required to prove that:

¶78

(1) the accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property or the property etc., or another in whom the former was interested.

¶79

(2) the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offences; to

¶80

(3) he did so to cause that the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.

¶81

24. The overall analysis of aforesaid evidence on record clearly reveals that the prosecution in this case has failed to prove the existence of aforesaid ingredients to attract the aforesaid allegations levelled against the accused. Further the presence of CW3 at the time of alleged incident is doubtful. It is because the complainant in Ex.P1 and in his portion of examination-in-chief has stated that at the time of alleged incident CW3 was present. However in his further examination-in-chief itself the complainant has stated that after occurrence of the incident, after hearing his screaming CW3 came and pacified the quarrel. In his cross- examination PW1 has also stated that CW3 came to the spot of incident after commencement of the quarrel. Hence, there is variance between the case of the prosecution and the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief and also in his cross-examination.

¶82

25. On the other hand PW2 another alleged injured also state before Court that after the occurrence of the incident CW3 and CW4 came and pacified the quarrel. On the other hand CW3 in his evidence has deposed that after knowing about the quarrel himself and CW4 went inside the house and pacified the quarrel. The said version of PW1 to PW3 in respect of presence of CW3 at the time of occurrence

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶85

of alleged incident creates doubt in the mind of the Court. Further PW1 in his evidence has pleaded ignorance about the existence of house of one Mallikarjunaiah and others adjacent to his house. On the other hand PW2 who is brother of the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that their house is surrounded by house of Mallikarjunaiah and others. Further PW1 has denied that he is running a Shop at Tiptur and whereas PW2 has admitted that the complainant is running a Shop at Tiptur. According to PW1 and PW2 the said incident took place since the accused have previous ill-will against them. However, in this regard the prosecution has not produced any document and hence the said contention of PW1 and PW2 is not tenable.

¶86

26. According to the complainant and according to the prosecution PW3 and PW4 were present at the time of alleged incident. They have pacified the quarrel. However, PW3 and PW4 in their cross- examination have admitted that their house is situated far away from the premises of the complainant. Further PW2 to PW4 have clearly admitted about the existence of residential house of Mallikarjunaiah and others nearby the house of the complainant and hence if at all any such incident as contended by the prosecution has occurred, the neighbours of the complainant ought to have witnessed the same. Further it is the case of the complainant that the said incident took place initially inside the house and thereafter outside the house. However PW3 who is one of the alleged eye- witness deposed before the Court that no quarrel took place inside the house of the complainant. Further none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed the alleged abusive words used by the accused at the time of

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶89

said incident. Further the materials on record also reveals that the concerned Investigating Officer has not made any attempts to secure the statement of witnesses of the locality. Further the concerned Investigating Officer has not cited residents of said locality as witnesses. The said fact creates doubt about the case of the prosecution.

¶90

27. Further the complainant and PW2 have admitted that CW3 to CW5 are having good relationship with them and even said PW3 to PW5 also admitted this fact in their crossexamination. Hence, PW3 to PW5 appears to be interested witnesses and the evidence of PW1 to PW5 does not inspire confidence of the Court. Further evidence of CW6 is not helpful to prosecution as his evidence revolves around the fact of conducting investigation in this case.

¶91

28. As stated above the prosecution has failed to secure the concerned Investigating Officer and nonexamination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of prosecution. The overall analysis of aforesaid evidence on record clearly reveals that version of PW1 and PW2 in respect of occurrence of incident is contrary with each other. Likewise evidence of alleged eye-witnesses PW3 & PW5 also contradicts with the version of complainant and version of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence of the court and hence, the Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶92

29. Further it is well settled law that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted on assumptions and presumptions. Further it is settled law that when two views

¶93

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶94

are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused has to be accepted by the Court. The overall analysis of the entire evidence on record clearly reveals that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for an order of acquittal on the basis of concept of benefit of doubt. In the result, this Court proceeds to answer Point No.1 to 4 in the negative."

¶95

The Appellate Court has not properly

¶96

appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.

¶97

re-consideration of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any irregularity/illegality in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner has made out a case that the Judgment of Conviction and order on sentence passed by the Appellate Court is illegal and not sustainable under law. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative.

¶98

Regarding point No.2:

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2024:KHC:1558 CRL.RP No. 577 of 2017

¶101

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I

¶102

proceed to pass the following:

¶103

ORDER

¶104

i. Criminal revision petition is allowed .

¶105

ii. Judgment of acquittal dated 22.06.2015 passed in C.C.No.693/2012 by the Court of the Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli is confirmed.

¶106

iii. Judgment dated 04.04.2017 passed in Crl.Appeal No.10030/2015 by the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiputur is set aside.

¶107

iv. Revision petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 448, 504,323 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶108

v. If any fine amount is paid by the accused, the same shall be paid to them in accordance with law.

¶109

vi. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with records to the concerned Courts.

¶110

Sd/JUDGE

¶111

SSD

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Jayanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanna v. 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

D Kuberappa Vs Noorulla Khan

The State of Karnataka Vs Rukminibai

Sri. D Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr C Ramachandran Vs Mrs Vimala W/O a Ayyappa Reddy

M Surendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka