Rajkumar @ Raju Vs the State

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN C.C.4539/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC DATED:23.03.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.4539/2013 AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.23/2017 DATED:09.12.2019 AND BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.4539/2013 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

UNDER SECTION 353, 394, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

CAV ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶27

This revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.03.2017 in C.C. No.4539/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi and its confirmation order dated 09.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.23/2017 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.

¶28

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience.

¶29

Factual matrix of the case:

¶30

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 28.05.2013, at about 07.00 p.m., CW.1 was on duty in the City Bus bearing No.KA-32-F-1825 with CW.4 as a driver. When

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the bus came near Lalageri Cross, at that time, two persons came on a two-wheeler motorcycle bearing its registration No. KA-32-EC-0547 in front of the bus and stopped the said bus. They entered into the bus and abused CW.1 in filthy language and dragged CW.1 by holding his shirt collar and also slapped on the cheek of CW1. That apart, they also assaulted CW.1 on his head with a liquor bottle in their hand. However, C.W.1 escaped, but a lacerated wound occurred on his right side neck. Further, the accused have assaulted CW.1 on his stomach and chest with a liquor bottle and also forcibly took Rs.400/- from his pocket. The accused also assaulted CW.4, who was the conductor of the bus when he came to rescue CW.1. Based on the information, the police have registered a case in Crime No. 92/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 394 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶35

To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16 and also identified one

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

material object as MO.1. After concluding the trial, the Trial Court recorded the conviction for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal has been preferred by the accused before the First Appellate Court. The same has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

¶39

Heard Sri.Rajesh G.Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for respondent – State.

¶40

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶41

It is further submitted that, even though there are some inconsistencies in the evidence of all the witnesses, the Trial Court recorded the conviction, which is contrary to the facts and the law. Though, the alleged incident took place at about 07.00 p.m., in a crowded public place, and

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

there were 35 to 40 passengers in the bus, no independent witnesses have been examined or cited as witnesses to the case, which creates a doubt regarding the incident.

¶46

It is further submitted that, as per the prosecution version, PW.1 was assaulted with a liquor bottle and sustained bleeding injuries. However, the prosecution has not produced either a liquor bottle or blood-stained cloth of PW.1. This is a serious lacuna that should have been considered by the Trial Court. In addition to that, Ex.P9 - seizure panchanama would indicate that the serial numbers of the currency notes seized by the investigating officer have not been mentioned.

¶47

It is further submitted that there are some lacunae in the case of the prosecution. However, the Trial Court did not notice such lacunae and passed the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Per contra, learned HCGP justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below and prays to dismiss the revision petition.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court in recording the conviction, it is relevant to refer the evidence of all the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion as to whether any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below.

¶53

P.W.1 being a complainant, was working as a driver at KSRTC. He was working for Depot No. 3 at Kalaburagi. On 28.05.2013, he was deputed to the bus bearing No. KA-32-F-1825 Nruputhunga City bus at about 07.00 a.m. When the bus reached Lalageri cross, the accused persons intercepted the bus by placing the motorbike in front of the bus. PW.1 stopped the bus. By that time, the accused persons entered inside the bus and held the collar of the shirt and assaulted PW.1 by scolding in filthy language. When one of the accused tried to assault on the head of PW.1 with a liquor bottle, PW.1 is said to

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

have escaped from the assault, consequently, he sustained abrasion injury on the right side of the neck. Further, he stated that he had been assaulted on various parts of his body and also further stated that an amount of Rs.400/had been robbed by the accused. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. On the same day, around 08.00 to 8.30 a.m., the police have recorded his statement. Based on the said statement, FIR came to be registered. PW1 identified the statement as Ex.P1. He had been cross-examined by the defence counsel. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW1.

¶57

PW.2 was stated to be the Depot Manager of Depot No. 3 at Kalaburagi. He stated that he deputed PW.1 and PW.4 to the said bus in which the incident had taken place. He certified that both PW.1 and PW.4 were on duty on the date of the incident.

¶58

PW.3 being the retired driver at KSRTC, he was called by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of conducting spot panchanama. The said panchanama had been

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

marked as Ex.P8. He had affixed his signature to the said panchanama. He supported the case of the prosecution. He further stated that the amount of Rs.400/- has also been seized and Bajaj Discover motorcycle had also been seized as per Exs.P9 and P10 respectively. He identified M.O.1 and also identified the photograph of the motorcycle. He supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3 in spite of cross-examination having been done.

¶63

PW.4 being the conductor of the said bus was working in the said bus where PW.1 had sustained injuries in the incident by the accused. He deposed in consonance with that of PW.1. Though he has been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence.

¶64

PW.5 was working as a Police Constable at Brahmapura Police Station. PW6 was working as PSI, he is stated to have conducted part of the investigation.

¶65

PW.7 was working as Police Inspector and he is stated to have conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶66

9 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4038 CRL.RP No. 200003 of 2020

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

PW.8 was the Doctor who treated PW.1 and submitted the report as per Ex.P14. As per the said report, injuries sustained to PW.1 are simple in nature.

¶70

PW.9 was working as Police Inspector as on the date of alleged incident, he conducted part of the investigation and handed over further investigation to PW.7.

¶71

On considering the evidence of all these witnesses, it appears from the record that, PW.1 and PW.4 are the driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus. The accused have intercepted the bus by placing the motorcycle in front of the bus, entered into the bus and assaulted PW.1 and caused injuries, the same has been witnessed by PW.4. PW8 is the Doctor who treated PW.1. His evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Such being the fact, interfering with the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction and its confirmation by the Appellate Court, in my considered view, would not arise. Therefore, I declined to interfere with the concurrent findings.

¶72