Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O.Basavanneppa Betageri, vs The State Of Karnataka, Through Cpi, on 3 December, 2013
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRL. REVISION PETITION No.2312/2010
BETWEEN:
1. MARUTI S/O.BASAVANNEPPA BETAGERI,
AGE 53 YEARS,
OCC AP MEMBER, R/O.HUBLI,
TQ & DIST BELGAUM
2. RAMOSHI S/O.BASAVANNEPPA NAIK,
AGE 47 YEARS,
OCC AGRIL, R/O.HUDLI,
DIST BELGAUM
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri SRINAND A PACHHAPURE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CPI,
HIREBAGEWADI,
(MARIHAL POLICE STATION) NOW REP BY HCGP
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S
397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 05.02.2010, PASSED BY THE JMFC-III
COURT, BELGAUM, IN C.C.NO.694/2008 CONFIRMED IN
2
CRL.A.NO.32/2010 DATED 05.08.2010, PASSED BY THE IV-
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
Convicted accused are in revision against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.32/10 confirming their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 341, 504, 506, read with Section 34, I.P.C. as recorded in C.C.694/08.
2. Heard Sri Srinad Pachapure for the petitioner and Sri V.M.Banakar, representing the State. Perused records.
3. The substance of allegations on the basis of which petitioners were arraigned, tried and convicted is:
a) On 24.7.2008 when PW1-S.A.Ghodase and PW9-
L.S.Chindungi were on patrol duty at 10.45 p.m. along with four more constables, they reached Sulebhavi Cross on Belgaum-Gokak road. They saw petitioners seated in a car bearing registration No..KA-22-MV-8223 parked in the middle of the road. When they questioned, petitioners are 3 said to have talked rudely and abused them in vulgar language. The 1st petitioner is alleged to have caught the uniform of PW1 and restrained him from performing his duty and caused threat to him and other constables. That is the allegation on which they were detained, taken to police station and case in Crime No.88/08 was registered for the offences indicated above, and ultimately final report was filed.
b) Petitioners pleaded not guilty and were put to trial. In the trial that ensued, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and placed reliance on 7 documents and one material object.
c) Learned trial judge analyzing the evidence, opined prosecution has established the charge and convicted them. This was assailed in Crl.Appeal No.32/10. Learned appellate judge confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Against both the judgments they are in revision.
4. Petitioners' counsel would contend, prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He 4 would submit, out of 6 persons said to be on patrol duty, prosecution has examined PW1-S/A/Ghodase. (complainant) and PW9- L.S.Chindungi (constable). The others, viz., CW-1 to CW-6 were not examined. He would submit, PW2-Basavanni Ningappa Pendari is witness to panchanama-Ex.P2 drawn at the spot and PW3-Bhimappa Hamani is witness to Ex.P3-seizure panchanama. Both of them declare they had not witnessed the mahazar and have simply contributed their signature. He submits other evidence would show they were implanted witnesses. PW4 and PW5 are Panch witnesses for Exs.P3 and P4 who have turned hostile. PW6, PW7 and PW8, who are eyewitnesses, have resciled from their statement and have not supported prosecution case. Thus he submits on the self-serving testimony of PW1 PW9, charge could not have been sustained. He therefore seeks reversal of the judgment of the trial court.
5. Sri V.M.Banakar for the State supports the conviction recorded.
5
6. Though this is a revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C., as records have been summoned from the trial court, the revision is converted into one under Section 401, Cr.P.C. and I have re-appraised the material evidence on record.
7. As could be seen from the undisputed facts, CW1 to CW6 were part of the patrolling team headed by PW1- S.A.Ghodase. According to him, they saw the accused in the Maruti van, having parked the vehicle in the middle of the road; they questioned them. The very fact that the complainant's team was in a group while the petitioners were only two makes it difficult to believe that the men in uniform could have been subdued by the 1st accused by holding PW1. Even if we assume the conduct of the accused was not decent and they were rude as alleged, the question is, whether their overt acts come within the mischief of Section 353, I.P.C. for which they have been charged. Thus the ingredients of the provision, viz., physical assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty is not made out, except for the allegation that the 1st accused held the shirt of PW1. As 6 regards use of force is concerned, PW1 and the complaint are silent. He does not disclose in what manner accused nos.1 and 2 had deterred them from discharging their duty. On the other hand, it could be seen, PW1 and his team were patrolling the area and the accused were seated in the car. It is only when PW1 questioned them, it is alleged they behaved rudely.
8. As regards the offence under Section 506, I.P.C., except saying they threatened, there is absolutely no statement against the accused. Besides, the very occurrence is doubtful. If as alleged, six policemen had witnessed the incident, there is no reason for the prosecution to withhold them from examining. It is only PW1 and PW9 who have deposed, among the two, PW9- L.S.Chingundi was not in the patrol team. The sole testimony of PW1-S.A.Ghodase is used by the prosecution to seek conviction. As other witnesses have turned hostile, non-examination of other witnesses compels the court to take the view that all that PW1 has stated needed corroboration and in the absence of it, it will be unsafe to 7 act solely on his testimony. In the circumstances, conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is not sustainable as legal evidence is lacking in this case.
9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment of the trial court in C.C.694/08 convicting the petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. is set aside and consequently the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.32/10 dated 5.8.2010. Petitioners are acquitted of all the charges levelled. Bail bonds, if any, executed by them or by the surety stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*