Karnataka High Court
Sri Muruli @ Gooli vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15507
CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 465 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. MURULI @ GOOLI,
S/O MALEESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT LAKSHMIPURA,
SAKALESHPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 334.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A.V, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SAKALESHPURA
Digitally signed TOWN POLICE STATION,
by D HEMA HASSAN DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2017
PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15507
CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
CRL.A.NO.132/2016 AND IN C.C.NO.14/2014 DATED
03.06.2016 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SAKALESHPURA AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 332, 504, 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.14/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshapura under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the impugned judgment passed in Crl.A.No.132/2016 dated 18.03.2017 confirming the judgment of the trial Court, convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as under:
On 17.10.2013, the opponent was a conductor of Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-18-F-735 belonging to KSRTC and the said bus was going from Sakaleshpur towards Beluru. At about 5.30 p.m., the said bus was stopped near B.M.Road -3- NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 of Sakaleshpura town to facilitate the passengers to board bus. At that time, the accused enquired with PW1 as to where the bus would go? The conductor asked him as to where he wanted to go? Accused became angry by the said question of the conductor, started quarrel with him and assaulted him with his hands and stone. The accused also snatched ETM machine used to issue tickets from PW1 and assaulted him with the said machine on his face and caused hurt to him. The accused by his illegal acts restrained PW1, who was a government servant from discharging his duty as a conductor. PW1 lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police as per Ex.P1. On the basis of the said complaint, SHO of the concerned police station registered Cr.No.249/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner before the trial Court for the aforesaid offences.-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the case and secured presence of the accused. Trial Court after hearing accused framed charges, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 323, 332 and 506 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to 7 and got marked ten documents as Ex.P1 to P10 and material objects M.O.1 and 2.
5. The learned trial Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused did not lead defence evidence.
6. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, by judgment dated 03.06.2016 convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC. The Trial Court on hearing, the accused as well as prosecution imposed the following sentences.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 "For the offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for 6 months and directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for 1 month.
For the offence punishable U/s 324 of IPC the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for 1 year and directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for 1 month.
For the offence punishable U/s 332 of IPC the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for 1 year and directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for 1 month.
For the offence punishable U/s 504 of IPC the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for 6 month and directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence punishable U/s 506 of IPC the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for 6 month and directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for 1 month.
The property M.O.1 seized in P.F. No. 201/2013 stone is order to be destroyed being worthless after completion of appeal period. M.O.2 E.T.M Machine is order to be returned to the C.W.1 after completion of appeal period.
All the above sentence shall run concurrently.
Office to supply the copy of judgement to the accused free of cost forthwith".
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the 5th Addl. District and Sessions Court at Hassan in Crl.A.No.132/2016. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties and on reappreciating the evidence available on record, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Correctness of the same is challenged by the petitioner before this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned HCGP for the State.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and case of prosecution are not consistent. There are serious contradiction in their evidence. PW.2 being the driver of the very same bus, is an interested witness and his evidence is not acceptable. The medical officer-P.W.6 during his evidence has stated that P.W.1 was not -7- NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 admitted as an inpatient. However, P.W.1 says that he was admitted as inpatient for two days. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is also not consistent with evidence of PW6. He further submits that the accused was said to be assaulted with M.O.1-stone and M.O.2-E.T.M. on the face of the victim P.W.1. If that was the case, then he might have sustained severe injury. However, wound certificate disclose that he sustained only abrasion injury. It is clearly indicates that M.O.1 and 2 were not used by the accused to cause injuries.
10. The defense of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in this case. He was President of Autorikshaw Association. Prior to the incident, he called for strike against the KSRTC on few issues. Therefore, he is falsely implicated by the official of the KSRTC as well as the police. The Trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not consider the said facts and convicted the accused of the alleged offences. Both the Court below have not -8- NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 properly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, prays for setting aside the judgment and acquit the accused.
11. Learned HCGP submits that this revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., and jurisdiction of this Court to reconsider the case is very limited. This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and take different view than the view expressed by the Court below. Both the courts below properly appreciated the evidence available on record and convicted the accused, which was upheld by the Appellate Court. The learned HCGP further submits that P.W.1 is the victim of the incident. He narrated the facts of the case. His evidence is supported by eye witness P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mahazar witness, who have also supported the case of prosecution. Evidence of P.W.1 regarding injury corroborated by the P.W.6. P.W.7 is a superior officer of P.W.1 who had issued certificates showing that the petitioner was serving as a conductor on the date of incident and he was on duty. P.W.4 is the investigating officer while investigated the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 case submitted the charge sheet. Their evidence corroborative, consistent and reliable. On appreciating the same, the Trial Court held that guilt of the accused is proved and it does not call for any interference and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that all of them are interested witnesses and their evidence is not reliable, without corroboration by the independent witnesses. Therefore, he prays to allow the petition.
13. It is trite law that under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., this Court has limited jurisdiction and cannot reappreciate the evidence available on record. If there is any illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed by the court below as well as any error committed by the Court below then only this Court can interfere in the findings of Court below.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
14. P.W.1 is the victim of the incident, in his evidence, he has stated that on 17.10.2013, he was working as conductor of the bus bearing No. KA-18-F-735 and going from Sakaleshpur towards Belur and the said bus was stopped on Beluru bus stop to facilitate the passengers to board the bus. At that time, the accused questioned him as to where bus would be going and he asked him where he wanted to go? Instead answering the same accused started quarrel with him. Accused was intoxicated and he abused him in filthy language and took a stone and assaulted on his face, due to which he sustained injury to the lip and jaw. The accused snatched ETM machine (ticked vending machine) and assaulted him with the said machine also given threat to his life. Thereafter the driver of the bus took him to the hospital and provided treatment. While taking treatment in the hospital, police recorded his statement. PW1 further stated that due to acts of accused, he could not discharge his duty. P.W.1 is also witness to the spot mahazer. In his evidence, he has stated that Mahazar was drawn on the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 next day and MO.1 and 2 were seized. He was thoroughly cross examined by the accused. In the cross examination, he has reiterated and elaborated the incident. PW-1 denied suggestion that due to personal enmity, he filed false case. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1
15. P.W.2 is an eye witness to the incident and driver of the said bus. He corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an interested witness, therefore his evidence cannot be believed. Said submission is not tenable. The learned appellate judge, in the impugned judgment has elaborately discussed in this regard. Merely he was serving along with P.W.1 in the same bus, cannot be the reason to hold that he is an interested witness. In his cross examination also, it is not brought out that he had any enmity with the accused or he is very much interested in convicting the accused. Nothing was brought out to discard his evidence.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
16. Oral evidence of P.W.1 regarding injuries, is supported by P.W.6. who has treated him on 17.10.2013 at about 6.45 pm. He narrated the injuries in Ex.P4 stating that Injuries No.1, 2 and 3 sustained by the P.W.1 are simple in nature. In the cross examination of P.W.6 by the accused nothing was brought out to disbelieve the same.
17. P.W.3 is not a material witnesses and he is a witness to Ex.P2 and seizure of M.O.2. P.W.7 is the Assistant Traffic Superintendent of KSRTC. He has given certain documents to the Investigating Officer and the said documents supports the evidence of P.W.1 that he was a conductor and P.W.2 was the driver of the said bus. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet. Their evidence has been appreciated by the Courts below properly and came to right conclusion, hence, it does not call for any interference by this Court.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
18. The trial Court considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused regarding the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act rejected the said contention on the ground of gravity of the offence against the public servant that is also considered by the appellate Court and accepted the said findings and that does not call for any interference.
19. The trial Court convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC. Due to his acts the accused deterred public servant from discharging his duty and caused him hurt. The trial Court convicted him under Section 323 and 332 of IPC. Therefore, there is no need to convict the accused of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused was aged about 26 years at the time of incident. He has to maintain the family responsibilities. Therefore, prays to reduce the imprisonment and may enhance the amount of fine. The said submission is acceptable. The
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017 incident has taken place during the year 2014 and already matter is pending for 10 years. Considering the same, sentence needs to be modified.
21. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The revision petition is partly allowed. ii. The conviction of the accused punishable under Section 323, 324, 332, 504 and 506 is confirmed. iii. The sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified as under:
a) Since accused is sentenced under Section 332 of IPC there is no need for separate punishment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.
b) The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507
CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
c) The accused shall undergo
imprisonment for a period of three months and shall pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.
d) The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo further imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
e) The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo further imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.
f) Substantial, sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:15507 CRL.RP No. 465 of 2017
h). Forty five (45) days time is granted to the accused to surrender before the trial court to undergo sentence.
v. Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
vi. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of the judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS,AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK