Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar S/O Suryanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
CRL.R.P.NO.100104/2014
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SURYANARAYANA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. 2ND CROSS, DEVI NAGAR,
BELLARY TQ. AND DIST.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2022.12.30
13:17:31 +0530
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN CRL.A.NO.88/2013 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY AND THE RECORDS IN
C.C.NO.605/2012 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., BELARRY, ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.88/2013 DATED 14.2.2014
ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE BELLARY AND THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELLARY IN
C.C.NO.605/2012 DATED 01.04.2013.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2022 COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to allow the revision petition and set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.88/2013 dated 14.12.2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Bellary in C.C.No.605/2012 dated 01.04.2013 & set the petitioner at liberty.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Heard Sri. J.Basavaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP for the respondent/State.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that: -3- CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
4.1 On 01.06.2011 at 09:10 p.m. CW.1-being driver of KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-34/F-
1112, came from Bangalore to Bellary by driving his bus and while he was entering into new KSRTC bus-stand, accused persons who were standing in the middle of the road near main gate with their two wheeler, did not give way to the bus of CW-1, and later when, CW.1 blew horn for the second time, they removed two wheeler from that place and then, CW.1 took his bus into bus-stand gate and parked near the place where the passengers have to alight and at that time, accused persons suddenly came there and picked up quarrel with CW.1 and abused him in filthy language and accused No.1 assaulted him with his hands on his back side of head and shoulder and accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 not to leave and to teach him a lesson and accordingly, accused -4- CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014 No.1 assaulted CW.1 and when CW.4- conductor of the said bus came for rescuing CW.1, accused No.1 caused injury to CW.4 with his hands, as a result of which, cash amount from her cash bag fell down and accused again came from the back door to the front right side door of the driver seat and by taking the rod of the jack, attempted to assault CW.1 and when CW.1 tried to escape from such blow, the said blow of the rod fell on the glass window of the driver seat door, as a result of which, the said glass damaged and accused caused loss of Rs.500/- to KSRTC and immediately, the other staff of KSRTC came and pacified the quarrel. The accused persons while going back, held out threats to the life of CWs.1 and 4 and caused obstructions to the Government duty of CWs.1 and 4 and also insulted them in public by abusing them in filthy language.
-5-CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014 4.2 After investigation, IO has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506, 114, 427, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
4.3 After taking cognizance, the Trial Court issued summons to the accused, the accused appeared before the Trial Court, substance of plea was recorded, accused have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4.4 To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11, 7 documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to 7 and 2 material objects got marked as MOs.1 and 2. On closer of prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. Accused -6- CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014 have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but they have not chosen to lead defense evidence on their behalf.
4.5 On hearing both the sides, the Trial court has passed impugned judgment convicting the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4.6 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, the accused No.1 and 2 have preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary in Crl.A.No.88/2013, same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 14.02.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, accused No.2- Chandrashekar S/o. Suryanarayana has preferred this revision petition.
-7-CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
5. Sri. J. Basavaraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner has submitted his arguments that the accused No.2 has not committed any offence as alleged against him by the prosecution. There are absolutely no allegations against this petitioner but he has convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced as an abettor to the offences committed by accused No.1. The Court below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgments which are not sustainable under law. With this, he sought to allow this revision petition.
6. As against this, Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP has submitted his arguments that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments by this Court and with this, he sought to dismiss the revision petition.
-8-CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
7. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11.
7.1 PW.1 is the complainant-cum-victim. PWs.2 and 4 are the attestors to the spot mahazar, PW.3 is the eyewitness and injured, PWs.4 to 6 are the driver-cum-conductors of KSRTC. PW.8- Assistant Traffic Inspector in-charge of bus stand, PW.7 is Depot Manager who speaks about the issuance of Duty Certificate, PW.10 is the medical officer and PW.11 is the investigating officer.
7.2 PW.1-complainant-cum-victim has deposed against this accused No.2 that he was standing and shouting near the place of the incident. PW.4 has deposed that accused No.2 has abused PW.1.
7.3 PW.5-Baghappa driver of KSRTC and PW.8- Gajendra, Assistant Traffic Controller, KSRTC -9- CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014 have not deposed anything against the accused. These witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution and cross- examined.
7.4 During the course of cross-examination, only PW.5 has admitted that accused No.2 has abused in filthy language and abetted the accused No.1. PW.6 has deposed that both the accused have abused PW.1. PW.8 has not deposed anything against this accused No.2. PW.11-Veeresh said to be the attestor to the spot panchnama has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.2-Krishna, one of the attestors to the panchnama also not supported to the case of the prosecution. PW.3- V.G.Kamalamma, Conductor has deposed in her evidence that another accused has abetted the accused-Sudarshana Reddy but the name of accused No.2 has not been disclosed by her.
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
8. A perusal of these material witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution witnesses have not deposed anything about accused No.2 to attract for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The witnesses of the prosecution reveals that the accused No.2 abused PW.1 along with accused No.1. Considering these evidence on record, the Trial Court has convicted accused No.1 and 2 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC.
9. In this regard, it is necessary to mention here as to the provision of Section 504 of the IPC which reads as under:
"S. 504. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
10. The essential ingredients to prove the offence punishable under Section 504 are as under:
"(a) Essential Ingredients.-An offence under this section has following essential ingredients:
(i) Intentionally insulting a person and thereby giving provocation to him:
(ii) The person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of section 504 are satisfied.
One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under section 504, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(b) Evidence.-To bring home an offence under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the prosecution must prove (a) that the accursed insulted the victim; (b) that the accused did so intentionally; (c) that the accused by the insult hurled to victim provoked him; (d) that the accused intended or knew it to be likely that the resulting provocation would lead the victim to break the public peace or to commit any other offence."
11. In the case on hand, there is no sufficient evidence to attract the above essential ingredients to punish the accused under Section 504 of the IPC.
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014 Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 under Section 504 of the IPC.
12. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC is concerned, Section 114 of the IPC reads as under:
"114. Abettor present when offence is committed.- Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence."
13. To prove Section 114 of the IPC, the prosecution has established the following ingredients:
"(a) Ingredients of offence.-The essentials of an offence under this section are
(i) There was abetment by accused;
(ii)The act was actually committed in pursuance of abetment;
(iii)The accused was present while the act was being committed."
14. In the instant case, PW.1 has not whispered anything against the accused No.2. He has deposed
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014 against accused No.2 that he was shouting, except this, he has not whispered anything against accused No.2.
15. PW.3-V.G.Kamalamma has also not mentioned the name of the accused No.2 but she has stated that another accused instigated accused No.1. But how the accused No.2 has instigated, how he has abetted accused No.1 has not been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no cogent, corroborative, clinching and trustworthy evidence to connect accused No.2 for the commission of the alleged offences. Though absolutely there is no evidence against accused No.2 to prove that he has committed the alleged offences, the Trial Court has convicted accused No.2 along with accused No.1 for the commission of the alleged offences which is confirmed by the Appellate Court which are not sustainable under law. Accordingly, the impugned judgments require interference of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 14 -CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
ORDER i. The revision petition filed by the petitioner who is accused No.2 is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bellary in CC.No.605/2012 dated 01.04.2013 against accused No.2/ Chandrashekar and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary in Criminal Appeal No.88/2013 dated 14.02.2014 are set aside.
ii. Accused No.2 is acquitted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 323, 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
- 15 -CRL.RP No. 100104 of 2014
iv. Transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Trial Court along with a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RH