Karnataka High Court
Fayazahamad S/O Rehamansab Inamdar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AN, AND BY RAR aeDpY CRIMINAL REVIS ION Pr Ti HON Now 20 I. Favazahamad S/o. Rehanansb Laan adie . Age: 36 years. Occ: Business. Ryo. Navanagar. Bagal kot. 2. Rafik Ss) oN todinsab Had litiani. Age: 2 Yvears. Ocer 1 'aLler: Ie "GO. Na wanagar. Sy Ao. Kot Sand Harun S/o: Rehim: Anis abl In: andar Ager20 vears Ove. Driver. Rio, Nawartagat, Bagalkot. 1 gat -PETTEIONERS (By Shri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi. Advocate.) _ The Stateof Karnataka. (By Additicnal State Public ~~ Prosecutoé. Dharwad.) (Bs Shri Anand K. Nava Hagimath. Gov ernment Pleader,) < c This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Crit inal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioners praving that this 'Von'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and set aside the judgment and ordei-dated 3.12.2008
passed by learned District and Sessions Judge. Bagalkot. in Crh Appeal No.48/2008 wherein appeal is dismi issed, ux onli: al the conviction and sentence imposed against the pellants ba:
trial Court as well as. set aside the judgment of conviction a d orde of sentence dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned i Add JME Court. Bagalkot. in C.C NoR11 20 107 "and aequil tient Stat the charges. me Ss This petition coming on f5r"final hearing this dayythe Court made the following:
"aaa Heard the carned cou nsel bor the p Pp etitioners ee are as follows:
One Lalita wife of Ganesh Danee and her husband are natives of Shemaliva village ef "Rajasthan State and had migrated to Bagalxot £2 vears prior r LO. the incident. They were vending batl-purt * yee for-their Hvelihood and they had set up shop near Garden of NavVanagarin. Bagalkot as well as near E nemeering College at i: which was looked after by her husband. It is stated that. + on 27.1.2007 when she was doing her business at about 7-00 pm. ian the petitioners had visited her shop. after consumine SdUCHOrL Were leavine the Praee Wilhoutl Ddk ing pas ment. When She trial. They were treated as hostile witnesses and therefore te. trial Court placed reliance only on the evidence of the complainant. her husband and her son and partially support was gn front. One witness namely PW.10 who had without ide 'ptiving the | dicoused had. stated that she was aware that the complaina wit and her-husbandavere * assaulted, AY The trial Court has aeeepied. the evidence and has imposed punishment and has held that offences: punishable undet Seetion 323, 504. : a1 and 56 of the' Indiin Penal Code. 1860 (hereinatter refereed. to os PC for brevity). were held proved and accordingly has imiposed panishmient of imprisonment of one month and fine aan cacti Mora offence punishable under Section 32 of IPG. Simple impr isom ment of one year and fine of %.2.000/- each "punishable under Section 304 of IPC and rigorous ~ impr isoment OF Unie vear and fine of &.2.500/- each for an offence punishable ut ur der Section 354 of IPC and simple imprisonment of six months for an offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC and further directed that out of the fine amount pavable. pe _ able sta the pan shainanti Ww a UC pe va Gla te COPD IAIN ads CO pe ysatl On, 'ft
6. That having been challenged and has made the yeveral contentions raised which are the very grounds said to be Faised. arthes present petition and the lower Appellate Court has. dismissed the appeal,
7. It is noticed that the Jower Appellate Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Several witnesses avho were present at the time of the freident Fad indeed turned hostile. But however has opined that the complainant could not be ignored nor evidence of her husband dnd her votive sor could be discarded. lo that though. thers wis no-reason. "wbs-a complaint should not be lodged against the aecused. by. an voung woman without any mg there. and without any motive by which she gould substance be have-possibly raist.suche a complaint and that incident having 7 eecurred Was. therefore established. Since the version of the complainant.\was? materially corroborated by the evidenee of her z * *, husband and her son. it is believed and that having been accepted by . the trial Court has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. Vhe fact vusband did not know the names of the has been pointed out. as being normal and natural instance. m2 (pected to know the accused, as fev were not 2 6
8. The lower Appellate Court has taken note of the-faci that the complainant had come into contact with the acused and 2 eleven vears prior to the incident and that.there has. been exchange of words earlier and that she knew the aceused and-the fact. that her husband and her son did wet know the' names Gt the aecusec was not fatal to the case of the prosecution and has proeeeded to hold that it is quite natural fGr the husbaad.ofthe complainant and her son did not know the names of the uc 9, The. aveused.. having. been sidentified and having arrested. did. not detract, fromthe fact.that they had not committed son had not iamed the accused and the fact that the complainant and her sep had. not given. the-details of the abusive words attributed to the aecused-has also been pointed out as being the natural reaction of Young boy in repeating such foul language in open proceedings, it is in that vain that lower Appellate » Coure.has rejected the several grounds raised by the accused having to the facts and circumstances which have been held serious effort to demonstrate that the cuse against the -Weeused tas not been proved Bexond all reasonable doubt would be entitled to a lenient consideration. eves if this 'Cour. want. to satisfy with the reasoning of the Courts pelos. thesSamic does nol reference to the material evidence which sannel be demonstrated to be false or made up. Having. regard to e Sequence of evenis it wus DUPHSP Gul Warranted if tae cause on ana.
the petition stands dismissed.