Allowed

Nawab v. State by Old Town Ps

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2024CRL.RP/852/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, holding that lower courts erred in conviction. The judgment noted contradictions in prosecution witnesses' accounts regarding the incident and lack of independent corroboration, ordering the petitioners' acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; judgments of conviction and sentence set aside; petitioners acquitted of offences under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 of IPC; bail bonds cancelled.

Nawab Vs State by Old Town Ps — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 852 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶9

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

NAWAB S/O ABDUL KHALEEL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVER R/O MOMIN MOHALLA ANWAR COLONY, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.

¶11

SIGBATULLA S/O MEHABOOB KHAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVER R/O MOMIN MOHALLA ANWAR COLONY, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MAHESHA M, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY OLD TOWN P.S., BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI. K, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2015 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.2532/2012 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.267/2015 AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2015 in C.C.No.2532/2012 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhadravathi and

¶24

its confirmation judgment and order dated 04.06.2016 in Crl.A.No.267/2015 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, Sitting at Bhadravathi, wherein both the Courts have recorded the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)

¶25

The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court henceforth will be considered accordingly for convenience.

¶26

Brief facts of the case:

¶27

It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.05.2012

¶28

at about 10.00 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding to his house on his motorcycle, accused No.1 asked the complainant to remove the wire which was passing on his house. When the complainant refused to remove the wire by stating that it was there for past 10 years, it cannot be

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶30

removed, then the accused No.2 restrained the complainant and accused No.1 by abusing the complainant in a filthy language, assaulted on his forehead. Consequently, the complainant sustained injuries, thereafter, he lodged a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.69/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). After conducting the investigation, charge sheet is submitted.

¶31

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and also identified the material object which is marked as M.O.1. Both the accused have been convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶32

Heard Sri. Mahesha M., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶33

It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that the conviction has been recorded based on the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶36

evidence of interested witnesses and their evidence has not been thoroughly analyzed. The independent witnesses namely PWs.6 and 9 have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶37

It is further submitted that the entire case is based on the version of the eyewitnesses, the wound certificate produced by the prosecution shows that the injuries are simple in nature and the accused has not used any dangerous weapon, therefore, the conviction in respect of Section 324 of IPC cannot be attracted.

¶38

It is further submitted that though the complainant is the aggressor of the said incident, the said fact has not been considered by the Courts below while appreciating the evidence. The Courts below have committed serious error in recording the conviction without appreciating the evidence properly and therefore, interference is necessary to analyze the said error in the interest of justice. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently justified the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶41

findings of the Courts below and submitted that the evidence of injured witness is the best witness and his evidence cannot be rejected for the reason that he being a injured in the said incident can accurately depose the overt act of each accused. The Doctor who treated the injured issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. The evidence of eyewitnesses corroborated the evidence of injured and also wound certificate. There is no occasion for the Courts below to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, conviction has been recorded appropriately. Since the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses, this Court being a Revisional Court need not analyze the evidence again. Making such submission, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State prays to dismiss the petition.

¶42

After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is appropriate to analyze the evidence by way of cursory look in order to find out as to whether any errors have occurred in the said findings.

¶43

PW.1 is said to have sustained injuries in the said incident and he made a statement regarding the said incident

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶46

when the police had been to the hospital where he was taking treatment. PW.1 further deposed that accused No.2 held him and accused No.1 by abusing him a filthy language assaulted on his forehead with a wooden club.

¶47

The evidence of PW.3 indicates that he had parked his autorickshaw in front of his house. The accused had also parked their vehicle in front of their house, around 8.00 p.m., he asked the son of accused No.1 to take off their auto to proceed with his auto for his livelihood. By that time, the quarrel had taken place, accused No.1 assaulted PW.1 and PW.1 sustained injury and thereafter, he took him to hospital for treatment.

¶48

PW.4 is the wife of PW.3, she also supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the incident in order to corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 3.

¶49

PW.5 was working as a Doctor at Government Hospital, Bhadravathi. According to him, on 22.05.2012, around 10.00 p.m., he said to have treated the injured and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. When the suggestion was made to him by the defence that such injury might be

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶52

caused when a person being a drunkard, fell on the rough surface, the Doctor admitted the said possibility.

¶53

PW.6 supposed to be the eyewitness to the

¶54

incident, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶55

PW.7 was working as Head Constable, Old Town Police Station said to have registered a case in Crime No.69/2012.

¶56

PW.8 was working as P.S.I of Old Town Police Station has conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶57

PW.9 supposed to be the eyewitness to the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶58

On conjoint reading of the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents available on record, it appears that PW.1 is the complainant / injured witness and PWs.3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.1 stated to have been assaulted by the accused No.1 with wooden club. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 appeared to be of the same verbatim. As per the evidence of PW.1, he had parked his TATA Ace vehicle in

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶60

front of his house. He asked the accused to take off their auto,

¶61

as he had received phone call for hire. Similarly, PW.3 also stated in his evidence that he had parked his TATA Ace vehicle in front of his house and asked the accused to take off their auto to take his vehicle to go for hire. This same verbatim creates doubt as to how both these persons received message for hire at the same time. Both these witnesses have not stated in their evidence that they had two vehicles of same brand. When their evidence is shrouded with doubt in respect of the cause for quarrel, it is necessary to refer the independent corroboration. PWs.6 and 9 being the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the said incident. The defence of the accused that the chances of falling on the rough surface and sustaining injuries when a person being a drunkard, cannot be ruled out. The Courts below should have analyzed the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 properly while appreciating it. Therefore, the findings of conviction cannot be accepted.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:7060 CRL.RP No. 852 of 2016

¶64

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶67

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2015 in C.C.No.2532/2012 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi and the judgment and order dated 04.06.2016 in Crl.A.No.267/2015 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, Sitting at Bhadravathi, are set aside.

¶68

(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶69

(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

BSS/UN

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Nawab v. State by Old Town Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawab v. State by Old Town Ps

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

Mr. Prasanna Vs Mr. Puttanna

M. Subramani Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathishkumar B C Vs State by Cpi

Sri Shabeer Khan Vs Sri v Anjaneya Reddy

Sri C Channesh Vs the State of Karnataka