Karnataka High Court
Mahabaleshwar S/O Gandadhar Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19" DAY OF SEPTEMBE R 3.20) Tt : . BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND I 2YRARI DY CRIMINAL REVISION Pi ETITION No.203922008 : | BETWEEN: Mahabaleshwar S/o Gangadhar Bhat Age: 44 years | Occ: Aericulturist" fees R/o Balagar.Paluk-Ya Ulapur Dist: North Ke wrk nataka. . (By Sriv.P Kuh Karn, "Ads 0c ate) AND: I. State of Karnat: 1ka. represented by i igh: Court Bui Idifie 'Dharwad. "Nagest. Si 0 Ragl vhoba Bhandari Age: 35- N ear' ot Occ: Agriculturist _ R/o.Balagar, Taluk: Yallapur "Dist: North Karnataka. Poo - 3. Pattatray S/o Raghoba Bhandari » Age: 31 years, Oce: Agriculturist 8 » PETITIONER oud R/o Balagar, Paluk: Yallapur Dist: North Karnataka. . RESPONDENTS. - (By Shri.Anand N Naval, High Court Government he Pleader for Respondent no.! a Shri Srinand A. Pachehapure. Advocate for Respondents.2-anc aN 5 se This Criminal Revision Petition. is filed under Section 401 of the Cri minal Procedure Code, praying tor Set-aside the order passed by the learned JMPC-1 Court, Yellapur, in C.C.No.371/2007 dated 11.6.2008. ~ . : This petition coming. on for:hearing this day, the court made the followi ny i mS me ORDER
Heard.the leidirmedcounseltoer the petitioner and the res spondents:.
2. "Phe petitioner is the complainant. Accoi 'ding to him, that. on 184.2607 at about |1p.m., at Balagar Village, North Karnataka Distiict, respondents 2 and 3 herein, in furtherance % fe ~ of theiz. common intention, on account of festering enmity in Sy espeel of the land, use of water and pathway, as between themselves. had restrained the complainant and had caused & again father hospital and thereafter, had lodged a.cemplaint. having been initiated on the basis of orievous ht exe eat st him. [It was only on the next day that the compl; inant' Ss ad brother had rescued him and got him aqmnitted. ite des framed the following points for its.consideration :-
(
1) Whether the prosecution prov es beyord~all reasonable doubt. that, on : 49.4.2007 at ZT QOPM at Ba slagar Vil iNage, both ~aecused in fe wtherance of. com mon Jpieiition due to eninity, in connetiion with: lands, water and pathway, dispute, wrongfully restrained the rightful mov ement. of complainant and thereby comni itted cant. pffence punishable under + Section. 341 read with Seetion 34 of Indian ~ Penal C ode?
Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
- réasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, 4 "time and place, both accused in furtherance of common intention, A-1 assaulted with deadly weapon like sickle on lefi knee joint of "Ss int. to his knees and also had used abusive language Proceedings"
the same, the trial & cul rt Md ao at me ragnd place, both accused in furtherance o! complainant and A-2 assaulted with deadly weapon like sickle on the right leg and | voluntarily caused grievous Injuries to him, and thereby committed an offence pun ishable. ader Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
Whether the prosecution proves. beyoid "all | reasonable doubt that, en. the aforesaid. date, time and place, both accused in: fur cherance of common. intention | abused t thes omp slainant in Filthy word hi ke B hosadi magan evand insulted "commitied an offence ~punispable: under. Seetiay 504 read with ~ Section 34-01 the Indian Penal Code? Whether the prosecution proves beyond all "reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, wiion ) intention, gave threat to the life of the : complainant and thereby committed an offence
- punishable under section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
E The trial court has held that from the material on record, there were material contradictions and omissions anc that th ; Te was no corroboration of the evidence of PW.1 - the compl la inant"
by any independent eye-witnesses ang the case of the peti Jone being that when he was being sseaulted the pe etitic ner haying raised an alarm, that nobody had coi ine tO his Fescue. could not be believed as he was assatulic data - place vlose to other houses of the village and itis therefor re Jnexptic icable. that inspite of the petitioner sig oa to raige-an alarm for a long time that none ne anes sees were available. It is further observed by the court below ; that there "was inconsistency between the statement made by the oe mpl ai nant as to the number of injuries : "on his body and the Medical Certificate that was issued. The ; cory plainaat bad stated that he was injured on his knees whereas ile injuries were caused with a sickle by the accused. _ "he Medical Report indicated that the injuries were on the shoulder and other parts of the body of the complainant, which OS 6 inconsisteney had not been explained by him in his evidence. It is further pointed out that though the complainant had stated &s to the accused having tied him up after assaulting bin aid that 7 a torch, a bag and his foot-wear were- Hund: at the place of occurrence, none of these items were sgioveinde. the Gr "aby leading to the presumption that thei were nO cud oh Fecow crie made and the occurrence . 'self becoming doubt The court also observed that the sickle used in the 'commission of the offence had not be sem to the Forerisic, Science Laboratory and in the absence ot any suicl "h be ertili cate | as to the blood stains m the sickle ang with blood group of the complainant, it could not be establis! shed ti val there was any connection betwe een the weapo son sol and the commission of the offence. i The Trial cour rt has $ also disbelieved the case of the complainant oe
a) a CD
--
G ~--
m a on 2 d-stated that he had identified by the voice of the
--aecuséd when they were abusing in bad language and the \ ~wecused also having ambiguously stated that he had identified ight, is an inconsistency, which could not, S therefore, be reconciled and it is in this vein that the trial court has ultimately held that the accused were acquitted, ofthe offences alleged in the face of the infirmitic aloresaid. iiss. that which is under ec
3. Though the learned counsel for the respondents would seek to justify the reasoning of the "court below, it cannot be said that the discrepancies:-i any, were fatal to the case of the petitioner.
4. In the face of the.circumsiance that the State, which ts the respondent ti the preseiit ip setition, would also support the case of the: petit ioner 1 ye ete inothe oy circumstance, which in the
-- opinign of this + dourt would support the case of the petitioner court below has resulted in ae qc oO we :
_ nua i.
and the. reason ing miscarriage: of Fustice. The fact that there was admission of enmity between the parties is not seriously disputed. It is also "hot i in "dispute th that the petitioner had suffered serious injuries to his knees. The inconsistency insofar as the number ol "injuries Zz that were found on the body of the petitioner were more than what he had stated. This is an inconsistency that could not have been held against the petitioner. It would have beer possivle if, the petitioner had suffered lesser numocr.of | injuries than J he had claimed. On the othe r hand, it was the oth ay rouid. Therefore, the court ought to have proceeds ed with cauti ion in negating the medical report. that. was available to sndicate that the petitioner had indeed suilered injuries as a result of the cident. The itl sonteiton th petitioner was a honey eatherer and he Was. rey get Is clk imbin ing trees in the jungle | | and thei injuries "may: ha ave 'been caused by a fall from a tree having beer accepted oy the Medical Practitioner in the course wf Sn erin
a) we, on Co Re nee, mnt " result in the court below negating " : the-allegations." The p presumption that though the petitioner had hillen . froin a sree, he had the ingenuitv to implicate the respondents as accused in a criminal case, is rather a perverted Views which cannot be accepted. The other circumstance that wou & ay Sovnane claimed that he had recognised the S the petitioner hac 9 respondents by their voice and that he had seen their face by torch light, has been treated as a serious discrepancy. de was possible for the petitioner to have recognised the accused rot _ only by their face, but aiso by torch light: hed cannot be any"
serious inconsistency in this situation. For the above anid other reasoning of the trial court, on the | basis of Ww hich, the accused have been acquitted, this gourtis of the firm opinion that the material evidence " record, would requaite Lo be analysed with more circul mspec cid ne and \ vith due "ei eilene & to the claim of the petitioner wissen sender by the prosecution. The manner, in which..the 'rial court has negated the entire circumstances. oft the above reasoning has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is appropriate that the matter is ~ reconsidered by the trial court by addressing the eviderice on record over again and rendering its judgment on i . the basis ef the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the "mmattér, is remanded for a reconsideration from the stage of closure of evidence in the case and to rehear the prosecution E and the accused and to pass appropriate judgment in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The judg zinent of the | court below is set aside in the light of the above rset The office is directed to remit the record the tr ial court:
The observations made by: this court aie nia "in addressing the present re Vis s10n petit lion and shall not be taken as conclusive since it is always open' for. the trial court to reappreciate the recor d vend to a arti ver at its own conclusions nd to allord reasans Vor-atrivin ing at suc ch conclusions, which may even be conirary 'to the' opinion that has been expressed by this court iy its revisional! jiirisdiction, whereby there is only a . pen riph cl ral examinetion of the record, to address whether any glaring intirinily has occurred in the course of the judgment.
whiiclr 1S in reeision.