Karnataka High Court
Vaijanath S/O Bhimarao Vilaspur vs The State Through Kamalnagar Ps on 19 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
CRL.RP.200075/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRL.R.P.NO.200075 OF 2018 (397)
BETWEEN
VAIJANATH S/O BHIMARAO VILASPUR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIVPUR, TQ. AURAD-B,
DIST. BIDAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE THROUGH KAMALNAGAR PS
NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
HCKB AT KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/SEC.397 AND 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION AND
ORDERS OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING
OFFICER, OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.65/2012, DATED 20.06.2018 AND LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL JMFC COURT, AURAD-B, IN C.C.NO.13/2008 DATED
2
CRL.RP.200075/2018
08.10.2012, WHICH ARE ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY, IN VIEW OF THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.02.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Aurad in C.C.No.13/2008 dated 08.10.2012 and confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Criminal Appeal No.65/2012 vide judgment dated 20.06.2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 11.09.2007, the election for the post of President and Vice President of Gram Panchayat Murki village was scheduled. CW.1 i.e., PW.3 was appointed as a Returning 3 CRL.RP.200075/2018 Officer of the election and the accused as well as CW.16 i.e., PW.20 had contested for the post of President of the said panchayat. It is alleged that the complainant came to the said panchayat office to conduct the election and by 5.00 p.m. the process of casting the votes was over. Thereafter, CW.1 - complaint and CW.18, who was Secretary of the Village Panchayat along with CW.21 were counting the ballot papers. It is alleged, at that time, the accused abused the complainant in filthy language in Marathi and gave provocation to him as well as criminally intimidated him by life threat. It is further alleged that he has also snatched seven polled ballot papers, which were opened and were kept on the table for counting and torn them. It is further alleged that he has also damaged the furniture and caused loss to the panchayat office. In this regard, the complainant has lodged a complaint before Kamalnagar police station, Bidar, which was registered in Crime No.136/2017. 4 CRL.RP.200075/2018
4. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that the accused had obstructed in lawful performance of official duty by public servant and he also came in the way of smooth conduct of the election. The investigation was undertook and the accused was arrested on the same day and he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer has investigated the crime, seized the material objects and after recording the statement of the witnesses, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 427, 504, 506 and 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 135(1) and 136(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
5. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and accused appeared through his counsel and he was provided with prosecution papers as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5CRL.RP.200075/2018
6. Then the prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses as PWs.1 to 23 and placed reliance on 15 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P15 and 3 material objects marked as MOs.1 to 3. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused was of total denial. However, he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.
7. After hearing the arguments and after perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506 and 171F of the IPC as well as under
Section 136(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by imposing sentence of imprisonment as well as fine with default clause.6
CRL.RP.200075/2018
8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bidar in Criminal Appeal No.65/2012. The learned Sessions Judge after re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 20.06.2018.
9. Against these concurrent findings, the accused is before this Court by way of this revision.
10. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no evidence to show toring of ballot papers and PW.18 has partly turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He would also assert that PW.20 is an 7 CRL.RP.200075/2018 interested witness as he has contested the election for the post of President against the accused and all other witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution, are official witnesses. He would also assert that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence consists of contradictory statements. He would also contend that the offence under Section 171F of IPC is non-cognizable one and hence challenges the entire process. Therefore, he seeks for allowing the petition.
12. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. He would contend that PW.3 is a Returning Officer and he had conducted the election and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.21, who was there to assist the complainant/PW.3 and their evidence is again corroborated by the evidence of PW.18, who is the Village Accountant. He would also contend that their evidence is again corroborated by the evidence of PWs.17 8 CRL.RP.200075/2018 and 19, who are the police officials, who have posted there for security and for smooth conduct of the election and PW.20 is another eyewitness. He would also assert that the evidence of seizure mahazar witnesses disclose the drawing of mahazar and seizure of material objects and the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and no grounds are forthcoming to falsely implicate the accused and there is no animosity between the official witnesses including complainant, who is the Returning Officer with accused and have no personal transaction with the accused. He would further submit that both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused by imposing a reasonable sentence. Hence, he would contend that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts do not call for any interference and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 9 CRL.RP.200075/2018
13. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court are perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this Court?"
14. It is an admitted fact that the election for the post of President and Vice President of Village Panchayat, Murki was scheduled on 11.09.2016,. It is further admitted fact that PW.3 - complainant was the Returning Officer and CW.21 was posted to assist him and they were deputed as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. It is further evident that the accused and PW.20 have contested for the post of President and PW.18 was the Village Accountant, who was assisting the Returning Officer in smooth conducting of the election.
10CRL.RP.200075/2018
15. It is evident that PWs.3 and 21 were nominated for smooth conducting the election and they had no personal interest. PW.3 is undisputedly a public servant and was a Returning Officer nominated by the Deputy Commissioner and he was further assisted by PWs.18 and 21. The evidence of PW.3 discloses that after completion of the process of casting the votes, he was counting the ballot papers and at that time, the accused came there, abused him in vulgar language in Marathi and he got information about meaning from the others and recorded those words and accused has also torn seven ballot papers and damaged the furniture. Though this witness was cross-examined at length, nothing worth was elicited in the cross-examination.
16. Further, PW.21 is another eyewitness, who was deputed for assisting the complainant in smooth conducting of the election. His evidence also corroborates the evidence of the complainant - PW.3. Their evidence is again corroborated by the evidence of PWs.18 and 20. PW.18 no doubt has partly turned hostile, but he is a Village 11 CRL.RP.200075/2018 Accountant and his evidence discloses that there was a galata inside the office. Admittedly, PW.3 was discharging his official duty as a Returning Officer of the election and he was a public servant.
17. Apart from that, PW.17, 19 and 22 were the police officials in the uniform and they have also supported the case of the prosecution. A simple defence was set up in the cross-examination that due to animosity and at the behest of PW.20 all the witnesses are deposing falsely. But, PWs.3 and 21 as well as the police officials were from different places and were deputed for conducting smooth election. They had no personal interest and their duty was to see that the fair elections are being conducted. But, the evidence discloses that the accused has obstructed in conducting the fair election and he has destroyed the entire process of election. It has come in the evidence that due to this aspect, the election came to be postponed and after the fortnight again the election was held wherein PW.20 was again elected as the President of the said Village Panchayat. 12 CRL.RP.200075/2018
18. No doubt, the other members of the village panchayat, who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. But, admittedly the incident has taken place inside the polling booth in the office wherein the counting was going on and all the witnesses were waiting outside and their hostility does not have any relevance. It is important to note here that PW.3 was interested with duty of conducting fair elections in a democratic set up and the sanctity of the elections is required to be maintained. The Returning Officer is an unbiased person and not interested in the result, but his duty was only to hold the elections in unbiased manner. In the instant case, no allegations were forthcoming that PW.3 - complainant was biased or he is supporting PW.20. The simple assertion is that at the behest of PW.20, all the witnesses are giving false evidence, but what was need for all the witnesses to head the request of PW.20 to give false evidence against accused is not at all forthcoming. 13 CRL.RP.200075/2018
19. Further, MO.1 consisting of seven polled ballot papers and MO.2 are the ballot papers, which were found intact and MO.3 is the table, which was alleged to have been used. No doubt, the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile, but they did not explain as to what compelled to them to sign on the mahazar without knowing the contents thereof. Hence, it is evident that they are not interested in getting themselves involved in the dispute and they thought it safe way to turn hostile. But, it is the duty of each citizen to assist in fair conducting of elections. Though mahazar witnesses have turned hostile, however, the evidence of PW.3, 18, 20 and 21 coupled with the evidence of PWs.17, 19 and 22 prove the allegations made by the prosecution and the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
20. During the course of the arguments, it is alternatively submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only fine may be imposed by setting aside the imprisonment. It is important to note here that the accused 14 CRL.RP.200075/2018 has contested for the post of President of panchayat and obstructed in smooth conduct of the election. He ought to have been a model to the public at large and the sanctity of the election is required to be restored and shall be maintained. Hence, to maintain the same, it is necessary to impose severe sentence so that other should learn a lesson desist from indulging in similar activities. The arguments regarding not obtaining permission by the Inspector in investigating for non-cognizable offence holds no water as other offences are cognizable offences. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge have elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence and appreciated the same in a proper perspective and have rightly convicted the accused. The approach of both the Courts below is just and proper and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
21. Apart from that, the learned Magistrate has imposed a reasonable sentence and considering the conduct of the accused in disturbing the very election process itself 15 CRL.RP.200075/2018 and targeting the Government Officials, who were deputed for fair conduct of the election as a Returning Officer, the sentence imposed cannot be said to be excess and such attitude is required to be curtailed in order to maintain democratic process that too in a civilized society. Hence, the question of interference with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not arise at all.
22. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. As such, the point under consideration is answered in the negative. Hence, the revision petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The revision petition stands dismissed.
b) Registry is directed to send back the records to the Trial Court along with copy of this 16 CRL.RP.200075/2018 judgment with a direction to secure the presence of the accused/revision petitioner for serving the sentence.
c) The revision petitioner/accused is also directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE SRT