Karnataka High Court
Nataraju S/O Gurunanjachar vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.94 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Nataraju,
S/o. Gurunanjachar,
Aged about 37 years,
R/o. Chamarajanagar. ... PETITIONER
(By Shri B.S. Hadimani, Advocate)
AND :
State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Chamarajanagar Town Police. ... RESPONDENT
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the
judgment dated 28.08.2008 in Crl.A.No.9/2006 passed by the Sessions
Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC, Chamarajanagar and set aside the
judgment and order of sentence dated 17.03.2006 in C.C.No.182/2000
passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Chamarajanagar.
This Criminal Revision petition coming on for final hearing, this
day, the Court made the following :-
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was Accused No.2 in a case which arose in the following circumstances. It is stated that on 27.05.1999, the present petitioner and Accused No.1 who were the Head Constable and Constable, respectively, of the Chamarajapet Town Police Station, had been assigned the duty of bringing Accused Nos.3 and 4 who were under-trials, to be produced before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar, for enquiry, from the Mysore Central Jail. On their production before the Court, Accused Nos.3 and 4 were remanded to judicial custody till 10.06.1999. It was the case of the prosecution that instead of going to Mysore, Accused Nos.3 and 4 had instigated the Accused Nos.1 and 2 to take them to Yalandur, by bus, on the promise that they would secure money there, which would be paid to Accused Nos.1 and 2. On the way to Yalandur, Accused Nos.2 3 and 3 are said to have alighted at Santhemarenahalli and Accused No.1, along with Accused No.4, had gone to Yalandur. It transpires that Accused No.4 escaped from the custody of Accused No.1 and when Accused Nos.2 and 3 reached Yalandur from Santhemaranahalli, they were informed that Accused No.4 had escaped. At that point of time, it was alleged that Accused Nos.1 and 2 had told Accused No.3 to get the cash that was promised, and allowed him to go. The hand- cuffs and leading chains that they were carrying were thrown away and in this manner, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have assisted Accused Nos.3 and 4 to escape from their custody. They had however, falsely informed the authorities that Accused 3 and 4 had escaped from their custody, while on the pretext that they wanted to attend nature's call, had pushed them and run away. In this background, the matter was investigated and the version of Accused Nos.1 and 2, was disbelieved and were charge-sheeted. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.4
At the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-19 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-11 and also material objects 1 and 2. On completion of the evidence, the court below framed the following points for consideration:
"1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.5.99, within the jurisdiction of Chamarajanagar Police Station, in furtherence of common intention, while going to Yelandur, the accused No.2 and 3 got down at Santhemaralli and the accused No.1 along with Accused No.4 gone to Yalandur, there accused No.4 was escaped from accused No.1 and when accused No.2 and 3 reached Yalandur from Santhemarahalli, the accused No.1 told them that accused No.4 was escaped and then the accused No.1 and 2 asked accused No.3 to bring cash and let off the accused No.3 and gave hand-cuff, leading chain and told that to thrown the same at Chamarajanagar and the accused No.1 and 2 assisted accused No.3 and 4 to escape from their escort and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 223 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.5.99, within the jurisdiction of Chamarajanagar Police Station, in furtherence of common 5 intention, the accused No.1 and 2 gave false information that accused No.4 escaped from their custody by saying that he has to go to attend nature call and accused No.3 pulled them and escaped and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 203 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
3. What Order?"
The Court answered Points 1 and 2 in the affirmative and accordingly, convicted the Accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 203 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity), and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each. Further, they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 223 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprinsonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. This was chellenged in appeal before the Appellate Court, which in turn, framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27-5-1999 within the jurisdiction of Chamarajanagar Police Station the accused No.1 and 2 being 6 the D.A.R. Police personnel in furtherance of their common intention while escorting the accused No.2 and 3 to Yalandur Court allowed the accused No.2 and 3 to got down at Santhemarahalli and accused No.1 along with accused No.4 went to Yalandur where the accused No.4 escaped from the lawful custody of accused No.1 and when accused No.2 and 3 reached Yalandur from Santhemarahalli the accused No.1 told them that accused No.4 was escaped and then accused No.1 and 2 asked the accused No.3 to bring cash and let off the accused No.3 with handcuff and leading chain and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 assisted the accused No.3 and 4 to escape from the lawful custody and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, place and time that accused No.1 and 2 gave a false information that accused No.4 escaped from their custody when he went to attend nature's call and accused No.3 pulled them and they escaped and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 203 read with Section 34 IPC?
3. Whether the impunged order passed by the Court 7 below is proper, correct in accordance with law, which require any interference from the hands of this Court?
4. What Order?"
The Court re-examined the evidence on record in arriving at its findings and it was observed that, Accused No.1 was dead and therefore, the case against Accused No.1 abated. On a close examination of the evidence, the Court has found that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were notorious criminals and Accused Nos.1 and 2 were duty bound to keep them hand-cuffed while they were escorting them and when they were brought from Mysore to Chamarajanagar. Further, whereas, they had to return to Mysore by the same route. The Court found that it was inexplicable that they were taken to Yelandur, which was out of the way. The further theory put forward that Accused Nos.3 and 4 wanted to answer nature's call and while they were so permitted to go about their business, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were pushed aside and along with hand-cuffs, had escaped from the spot. However, the hand-cuffs and the leading chains were recovered later, 8 near Santhemarenahalli, at the instance of Accused No.3. Though the witness to the mahazar, in this regard, namely the recovery of the hand-cuffs and leading chains had turned hostile, the Appellate Court had found that the fact that the hand-cuffs were recovered at the instance of Accused Nos.1 and 3 was established and therefore, it held that it prima facie disclosed that Accused Nos.1 and 2 being responsible police personnel, had not hand-cuffed Accused Nos.3 and 4 who were admittedly notorious criminals. Both Accused Nos.1 and 2 ran the risk by not hand-cuffing the accused and also falsely informing the authorities that the Accused Nos.3 and 4 had escaped from their custody while answering nature's call, which was not tenable in the light of the hand-cuffs and the leading chains having been recovered without any sign of the same having been forcibly removed, if indeed Accused Nos.3 and 4 had been hand-cuffed. In this manner, the Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. It is this which is under challenge in the present petition.
9
The findings of fact and the reasoning of the courts below, do not suffer from any infirmity. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue at length to point out that the courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence, the circumstances, as already pointed out, do not explain the conduct of the petitioner and it is hardly tenable that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were in a position to merely push the accused aside, who were trained police officers and run away, when it is not denied that the present petitioner as well as Accused No.1 were armed and yet were not in a position to detain Accused Nos.3 and 4 even if they were running away after pushing them down. Further, the recovery of the hand- cuffs and leading chains at the instance of the Accused Nos.1 and 3 would, prima facie, indicate that the Accused Nos.3 and 4 were not hand-cuffed at the relevant point of time. This is a serious dereliction of duty committed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the circumstance that they were at Yelandur instead of being on the route to Mysore, would 10 also indicate that they were not conducting themselves in a manner which was transparent, and their conduct was totally inexplicable. In that light of the matter, the case of the prosecution that there was an unholy nexus between the Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of a possible pay-off in order to allow them to escape, is writ large. Therefore, the findings of the court below and the judgment against the petitioner cannot be disturbed and it does not warrant any such interference. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would make a fervent plea that even if the petitioner's conduct is found to be amiss, the consequence of the conviction being sustained, would result in the petitioner's certain dismissal from service and therefore, a lenient view be taken since the petitioner's failure in his duty has certainly been brought home at this point of time and seeks that in the alternative, a lesser sentence be imposed, so that the source of livelihood of the petitioner is saved.
This is hardly a ground for consideration when there is no 11 infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as that of the Appellate Court. The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS