Channappa Dalabanjan S/O. Antoni Dalabanjan Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Channappa Dalabanjan S/O. Antoni Dalabanjan Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision Petition allowed; judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 11.08.2014 in CC No.441/2008 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, and their confirmation dated 10.08.2018 in Crl.A No.41/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur), set aside; petitioner-accused acquitted of charges under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC; bail bond cancelled and she is set at liberty; fine amount, if paid, to be returned by the trial Court; trial Court records sent back with copy of judgment and operative portion forwarded to the First Appellate Court and Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision Petitioner has made out any acceptable grounds so as to set aside the impugned judgement of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court as it suffers from infirmity and illegality?

Court's answer

The point for consideration is answered in the affirmative: the Revision Petitioner has made out acceptable grounds and the impugned judgments suffer from infirmity and illegality.

Ratio / Principle

There is a complete change of scene of offence by PW1: whereas the complaint and the Panchanama (Ex.P.1) place the incident in RS No.132 of Budhihal village, PW1 deposed that it took place at Umamaheshwari Temple, altogether different from the place stated in the complaint.

Key takeaways

PW1's evidence is quite against the contents of the complaint and his own statement before the Police; if such evidence is placed on record, it really requires corroboration.ratio¶16
Who produced the sickle (MO.1) before the Police is not explained either by PW1, or PW2, or the Investigating Officer; therefore the very seizure of MO.1 is doubtful.ratio¶17
PW3, PW4 and PW5 turned hostile; their evidence is inconsequential to the case of the prosecution and cannot be accepted.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.) - acquittal - benefit of doubt. Petitioner/accused No.2, convicted under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur (CC No.441/2008) and confirmed in appeal by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haveri (Crl.A. No.41/2014), approached the High Court. The prosecution case rested solely on injured eye-witness PW1 (CW4), who deposed that the incident of 01.09.2008 occurred at Umamaheshwari Temple, whereas the complaint and Panchanama (Ex.P.1) placed it in RS No.132 of Budhihal village - a complete change of scene of offence rendering PW1's evidence inconsistent with the complaint and his own police statement, requiring corroboration. The other eye-witnesses (PW3-PW5) turned hostile; the seizure of the sickle MO.1 was doubtful as nobody explained who produced it before the Police; the Doctor's evidence was accepted only to the extent of the wound certificates; and the police witnesses' evidence went only to registration of crime, recording of statements and preparation of the Panchanama. The families being close relatives with several criminal cases between them, false implication on account of animosity could not be ruled out. Held: prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the courts below committed illegality in believing PW1's evidence alone. Revision allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; fine, if paid, to be refunded. (Single Judge: Ramachandra D. Huddar J.; 15.01.2025)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgement of conviction dated 23.06.2014 and order of sentence dated 11.08.2014 in Crl.Case/CC No.441/2008 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur, confirmed in Crl.A. No.41/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) by order dated 10.08.2018.¶1
Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur; II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur)
Prior proceeding
Complaint lodged by Dundappa S/o. Halappa Mulagund (CW1) alleging that on 01.09.2008 at about 3:00 pm in RS No.132 of Budhihal village the accused quarrelled with him over installation of electricity board to the bore-well, abused him, and accused No.1 assaulted him with hands and a sickle causing simple injuries; CW4 was assaulted with a stick when intervening; abuse and threat of life in furtherance of common intention.¶4
Prior proceeding
Police Sub-Inspector of Hamsabhavi Police Station filed the chargesheet against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC.¶3
Prior proceeding
Accused No.1 was reported to be dead before the trial Court itself; the case against him stood abated.¶3
Prior proceeding
Copies of police papers furnished to the accused; charges framed under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.¶5
Prior proceeding
During trial, complainant/CW1 also died.¶6
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined 9 witnesses (PW1 to PW9) and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and MO.1 and 2.¶7
Prior proceeding
Accused No.2 questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; she denied complicity and led no defence evidence.¶8
Prior proceeding
Trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused No.2 under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced her (simple imprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences with 2 months default simple imprisonment, substantive sentences concurrent).¶9
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.41/2014.¶10
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court, on hearing arguments and evaluating the evidence, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.¶10