Karnataka High Court
Sri Devaraju vs State By Hosakote Police on 13 December, 2022
Author: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.655 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Devaraju,
S/o. Chikkamuniyappa,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.166,
Cheemandahalli,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
Working as Constable at
Mahadevapura Police Station,
Bangalore - 560013.
..Petitioner
(By Sri. Vivek N., for Sri. Deepak J., Advocate)
AND:
State by Hosakote Police,
Represented by Public Prosecutor
High Court Building -560001.
.. Respondent
(By Sri. Vinayaka, V.S., High Court Govt. Pleader)
****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the
conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in Criminal
Appeal No.5/2013 passed by the Principal Session Judge,
Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore dated 08-07-2013 and also
the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Crl.R.P.No.655/2013
2
Bangalore District at Bangalore dated 29-12-2012 passed in
C.C.No.3414/2010 and pass an order that the petitioner be
acquitted in the interest of justice and equity.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Final Hearing,
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioner was accused in Criminal Case No.3414/2010, in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment of conviction dated 29-12-2012 and order on sentence dated 03-01-2013 of the Trial Court, was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 448, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and was sentenced accordingly.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.5/2013, in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "the Sessions Judge's Court"), which, after hearing both side, Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 3 dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, the accused/petitioner herein has preferred the present revision petition.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 23-05-2010 at about 3:00 p.m., the present accused who was said to be a Police Constable of the Mahadevapura Police Station, trespassed into the house of the complainant by name George Joseph (now deceased) at his house in Srinivasa Reddy Layout, Kitaganuru Main Road, Bhattarahalli, Virgonagar Post, Bangalore, within the limits of the complainant Police Station and abused the inmates of the house, including the complainant, his wife -Smt. Rosa George and sister of the complainant -Smt. Mouli Joseph, and assaulted all the three of them and outraged the modesty of the women members in the house and inflicted injuries upon them by beating Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 4 them with his laathi and thus has committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 448 and 504 of the IPC.
3. The accused appeared in the Trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty, as such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all five (05) witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5, got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6(b) and got produced one Material Object in the form of a club as MO-1. On behalf of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked.
4. The respondent - State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the accused (revision petitioner) and learned High Court Government Pleader for Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 5 the respondent - State are physically appearing in the Court.
7. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court and learned Sessions Judge's Court's records.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:
Whether the impugned judgments of
conviction and order on sentence passed by the
Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, holding the accused (petitioner herein) guilty for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 6
10. Among the five witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 (CW-2) - Rosa George, who is the wife of the complainant - George Joseph (CW-1) and PW-2 (CW-
3) - Mouli Joseph, who is the elder sister of the complainant (CW-1) are the main witnesses, who also claim to be the victims and injured in the incident.
11. It is not in dispute that, during the pendency of the case in the Trial Court, in the month of March-2012, the complainant (Sri. George Joseph) died, as such, he was not examined, though he was the charge sheet witness No.1.
12. PW-1 (CW-2) - Smt. Rosa George - the wife of the complainant (CW-1) has stated in her evidence that, on the date of the incident, in the afternoon at about 3:30 p.m., the accused barged into their house, while herself along with her sister-in-law (CW-3) - Mouli Joseph were in their house. The accused assaulted both of them by means of hands and a laathi and at that time, her husband (complainant) -George Joseph also entered the house Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 7 and he too was assaulted by the accused. After seeing the people gathering near the house, the accused left the house. The witness stated that after the incident, a report was filed with the Police. She stated that all of them were also treated in a Government Hospital at K.R. Puram.
13. PW-2(CW-3) - Smt. Mouli Joseph has stated that, the accused were two in number, who barged into their house on the date 23-05-2010 and they were in possession with a Police laathi and hand cuffs and identified themselves as Police Constables by showing their identity cards and they badly handled them. The witness says that the accused pulled her plaited hair and assaulted. The witness stated that her brother George Joseph entered the house and he was also assaulted by the accused. By seeing the neighbours coming to their house, the accused left the place.
Both these witnesses (PW-1 & PW-2) have shown that the accused had come in a Santro Car and it is through the said Car they left the place.
Crl.R.P.No.655/20138
Both these witnesses were cross-examined from the accused's side wherein they adhered to their original version.
14. PW-4 (CW-5) - Dr. Susheela E. has stated in her evidence that, on the date 23-05-2010, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:05 p.m., she has examined three injured persons, i.e. George Joseph, Rosy George and Moly Joseph, who had been to the General Hospital, K.R. Puram, where she was working as a Medical Officer and the injured persons had come with the history of assault. The witness has stated that, she noticed several simple injuries on the person of the injured persons, in which regard, she issued Wound Certificates at Ex.P-5, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-3 respectively. She has opined that those injuries found on the injured persons were simple in nature and that they could have been caused, if a person was assaulted with a club.
In her cross-examination from the accused's side, she stated that the Wound Certificates were issued based upon Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 9 the entries made in the MLC register. She also stated that the said MLC register has not been produced before the Court, however, if required, the same can be furnished. The suggestion made to her that if a person, on his own, either by slip or by accident can have those type of injuries, has been admitted by her as true.
15. PW-5 (CW-4) - Babu, though was projected as a witness for the scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P-6, however, did not support the case of the prosecution.
16. PW-3 (CW-6) - K.L. Krishna, the then Police Sub- Inspector of the complainant Police Station, in his evidence has stated about he receiving the complaint from George Joseph on the date 26-05-2010 at about 7:30 p.m., registering the same in their Station Crime No.220/2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, submitting the FIR as per Ex.P-2 to the Court, proceeding to the scene of offence Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 10 and drawing the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-6 and seizing a club at MO-1 as shown and identified by the complainant at the spot. He has also stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the Wound Certificates from the Doctor as per Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5.
The denial suggestions made to him in his cross- examination were not admitted as true by this witness.
17. In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the accused (revision petitioner) in his argument submitted that, there is inordinate delay of three days in filing the complaint which has remained un-explained by any of the prosecution witnesses, as such, the said delay itself would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution.
Learned counsel further submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 with respect to the number of accused alleged to have been involved in the commission of the crime. When PW-1 says that it was a Police Constable, PW-2 has stated that, the accused were two in numbers.
Crl.R.P.No.655/201311
Learned counsel also submitted that, when the injuries said to have been inflicted upon them in the alleged incident which is said to have taken place at 3:30 p.m., the injured claims to have gone to the Hospital at 7:00 p.m on the same day. The said delay also imbibes a doubt in the case of the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the accused (revision petitioner) also expressed his doubt as to why the alleged Car, in which the accused are said to have come to the place of offence, has not been seized and also about the non-examination of the neighbours by the Investigating Officer.
He further submitted that, there is no clear identification of the present petitioner as the accused in the case.
Further, he submitted that the club at MO-1 is admittedly not the weapon used by the accused as per PW-1 and it is a major discrepancy in the case of the prosecution, which was not considered by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court, as such, the finding given Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 12 by them holding the accused as guilty and convicting him for the alleged offences is erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
18. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State, in his argument, submitted that, since admittedly, the complainant died during the pendency of the criminal case before the Trial Court, the other two injured persons i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 were examined by the prosecution. Both the witnesses have uniformly supported the case of the prosecution.
Learned High Court Government Pleader further submitted that, PW-1 has given evidence confining that, the charge sheeted accused was only one and her (PW-1's) evidence is concentrating upon the acts of the said accused alone. Whereas PW-2, another injured in the evidence has given the complete account of the incident stating that, apart from the accused before the Court, there was one more person who did accompany the accused and was Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 13 involved in the commission of the crime. By that itself, the reliability and trustworthy oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be disbelieved or doubted.
Learned High Court Government Pleader also submitted that, mere non-explanation of the delay by the prosecution witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
He also submitted that, had any question been put to the Investigating Officer regarding the alleged delay in registering the complaint, probably, the Investigating Officer would have thrown some light in that regard. As such, without making any such effort and also in the light of the death of the complainant, which is not in dispute, mere delay in registration of the complaint cannot be considered as causing any prejudice to the interest of the accused or fatal to the case of the prosecution.
With respect to the non-seizure of the alleged Car said to have been involved in the commission of the offence, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 14 since the said Car had got no involvement or role to play in the commission of the crime by the accused and independent of the vehicle the accused has committed the alleged offences, the act of non-seizure of the Car by the Investigating Officer, is also not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Finally stating that, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 which has withstood the thorough cross-examination from the defence side and being the injured eye witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded and taking the shelter under the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LAKSHMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) and connected matters reported in (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 191, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that, the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
19. It is not in dispute that the complainant - Sri.George Joseph died in the month of March-2012, as stated by PW-2 in her evidence, as such, since he died Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 15 prior to the commencement of the trial, though he was shown as CW-1, he could not be examined.
Thus, the remaining material witnesses among the charge sheeted witnesses are PW-1 (CW-2) - Smt. Rosa George and PW-2(CW-3) - Smt. Mouli Joseph. Both these witnesses have uniformly stated about the occurrence of the alleged incident. Though PW-2 has not stated that, in addition to the present petitioner (sole accused in the charge sheet) one more person was there, but nowhere she has confined in her statement that, the accused was only one and one alone, who committed the alleged act.
Since the charge sheeted witness facing the trial was only one accused, the witness has not given the details about the other accused. Still nothing had prevented the prosecution from eliciting through this witness (PW-2) as to the total number of accused said to have been involved in the commission of the alleged act. Perhaps, the prosecution did not do the said exercise for the reason that the charge sheeted accused was only one. As such, when it is the Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 16 prosecution case that it was the present petitioner alone who has committed the alleged offence, any revelation of the alleged role of another alleged accused by PW-1, though in fact PW-2 has revealed the same, would not, in any way, diminish the evidentiary value of the statements made by PW-1 regarding the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the present accused in the alleged incident.
(PW-2) (CW-3) - Smt. Mouli Joseph also, though has corroborated the case of the prosecution by following the evidence of PW-1 regarding the role of the present petitioner, however, she has shown that apart from the present petitioner, there was another colleague of him who also accompanied the present petitioner and involved in the commission of the alleged acts. For the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, the charge sheet was confined to only the present petitioner, however, by the said act of the Investigating Officer, confining the filing of the charge sheet only as against the present petitioner, the evidence of Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 17 PW-2 with respect to the present petitioner cannot be disbelieved.
PW-2 (this witness) has specifically, clearly and categorically stated about the alleged acts of the present petitioner, i.e. the accused.
Both PW-1 and PW-2, claiming themselves to be the injured eye witnesses have given the details of the occurrence of the incident. Both of them have stated that for no reasons, the accused barged into their house and started abusing them and manhandled them.
PW-2 further stated that, the accused held her hair (plait) and also abused her.
Both PW-1 and PW-2 stated that the accused assaulted them with a laathi he was holding and also assaulted George Joseph (CW-1) (husband of PW-1 and brother of PW-2), who just then entered the house from outside. Thus, in this way, both PW-1 and PW-2 have given the clear account of the occurrence of the incident in a Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 18 uniform manner and thus their evidence corroborates with each other and makes it clear that, it was the accused and accused alone who assaulted them.
20. The learned counsel for the accused (revision petitioner) in his argument also submitted that, neither of the injured eye witnesses (i.e. PW-1 and PW-2) have specifically stated that, they knew the accused prior to the occurrence of the incident and as such they could identify the accused. Even according to the prosecution, it is only after the accused was being identified as the Police Constable of the Mahadevapura Police Station from the entries, they came to know about his identity, as such, the identify of the present petitioner in the alleged crime is also doubtful.
21. No doubt, PW-1 or PW-2 nowhere have stated that, they knew the accused prior to the incident. On the other hand, their own evidence would go to show that, when the alleged incident was said to have taken place, the Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 19 accused was a stranger to these witnesses. However, about his identity as Police Constable of the Mahadevapura Police Station was made known to them by the neighbours who are said to have gathered at the time of occurrence of the incident. By that itself, it cannot be taken that the identity of the accused was doubtful or that the accused has denied his involvement in the alleged commission of the crime. It is also for the reason that, no where the accused has taken any specific defence in the cross-examination of PW-1 or PW-2 about his alleged involvement in the commission of the crime. His defence throughout has been a general denial of the incident. When PW-1 and PW-2 have specifically averred that, it was the accused and accused alone who has committed the alleged offence and when the complaint itself marked at Ex.P-1 also specifically names the present petitioner as the sole accused, who has committed the alleged offence, then, it was required for the accused to categorically deny about his alleged role and involvement in the commission of the crime in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2.
Crl.R.P.No.655/201320
22. Added to the above, the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation and was examined as PW-3 (CW-6) also has stated about the role of the accused in the commission of the crime. The identity of the accused has not been denied in his cross examination. Even in the cross-examination of PW-3 also, a general defence of denial of the incident was taken by the accused. As such, merely because PW-1 or PW-2 have not spoken about the identity of the accused at the earliest point of time as a person known to them, the same would not be taken as a doubt in the case of the prosecution regarding the involvement of the accused and his identification in the commission of the crime by the accused.
23 It was also the specific contention of the accused that the Investigating Officer has also not seized the Santro Car said to have been used by the accused for coming to the spot and also leaving the spot.
Crl.R.P.No.655/201321
No doubt it has been specifically shown in the complaint at Ex.P-1 that the Police had come to their house in a Santro Car bearing registration No.KA-03/MG-9418 and PW-2 also has stated that, the accused left the house in the Car they had brought with them, still, the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, has not seized the said Car. No doubt, as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the role of the Car in the commission of the crime may be of not greater significance since the alleged overt act is the house trespass by the accused and assaulting the inmates of the house by him with a laathi, however, since both in the complaint and also in the evidence of the injured eye witnesses, the reference with regard to the Car with its specific registration number has been mentioned (bearing No.KA-03/MG-9418), it was expected of the Investigating Officer to seize the said vehicle and also enquire the owner of the vehicle about the incident. However, probably for the reason that the accused before him was a Police Constable i.e. a person Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 22 from his own Department, the Investigating Officer appears to have not shown much interest in conducting a more scientific and thorough investigation in the matter. Still, the materials placed with the charge sheet, as analysed above, would go to show that the alleged incident of trespass in the house of the complainant by the accused in the afternoon of the date of incident and assaulting the inmates of the house including PW-1 and PW-2 by the accused has come out clearly and in a believable manner in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 .
24. Our Hon'ble Apex Court in LAKSHMAN SINGH's case (supra), has observed that, when the evidence of an injured eye witness proves to be trustworthy and believable, then the conviction can be based upon his evidence.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said case, in sub-paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of its judgment, referring to its previous judgment in the case of Abdul Syeed Vs. State of Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 23 M.P., [(2010) 10 SCC 259], was pleased to observe that, the evidence of the injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard their evidence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. It was further observed by their Lordships that, "being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted".
25. In the instant case also, since PW-1 and PW-2 have not only withstood the thorough cross-examination from the defence side, but also have shown that their evidence is trustworthy and believable and have proved that, it was the accused and accused alone who has committed the alleged offence of house trespass, outraging the modesty of the womenfolk in the house, provoking the inmates of the house by abusing them and also inflicting injury upon them by assaulting with a laathi. Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 24
26. The medical evidence of PW-4 (CW-5) -
Dr. Susheela E., further corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that, on the date of the incident, they sustained injuries. The Doctor who has examined all the three injured on the same day evening at 7:00 p.m. has given the details of the injuries noticed upon those patients by her in their medical examination. She has noticed four simple injuries in the form of abrasion, tenderness, and conjunctival haemorrhage in the left eye of the complainant
- George Joseph (now deceased). The evidence of PW-2 (Mouli Joseph) also would go to show that, due to the assault on her brother i.e. George Joseph by the accused, her brother had lost eye sight. The medical evidence coupled with the Wound Certificate at Ex.P-5 with respect to the complainant corroborates the evidence of PW-2 on the point. Though the Doctor has also stated that she had referred the complainant George Joseph to the Ophthalmologist, however, for the reasons best known to Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 25 him, the Investigating Officer did not collect the specialist's medical opinion in that regard.
27. Similar to the above, with respect to the alleged injuries inflicted upon the injured PW-1 and PW-2 also, the Doctor (PW-4) has stated that she noticed two simple injuries in the form of contusion and tenderness with respect to PW-1 and abrasions and tenderness with respect to PW-2 in their medical examination. She has stated that, in that regard, she had issued the Wound Certificates as per Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 respectively. The Doctor has also stated that she even referred the patients to an Orthopedic Surgeon also. However the Investigating Officer, once again, for the reasons best known to him, did not collect any specialist's opinion, as such, the medical opinion of PW- 4, who has clinically examined all the three injured persons and given the Wound Certificates as per Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 themselves are the only medical documents available in the case, which medical documents would still Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 26 go to show that, all the three injured had sustained simple injuries.
28. The very history recorded by the Doctor (PW-4) before examining PW-3 injured, as could be seen in the Wound Certificate would go to show that, the injured had approached the Hospital with the history of assault by an unknown person with a wooden stick at 3:00 p.m. on the same day. Thus, at the earliest point of time, the injured have disclosed even before the Doctor that they were assaulted with a wooden stick. The Doctor has opined that the injuries found on the person of the injured are possible to be caused when a person is assaulted with a club. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 also would go to show that, they were assaulted with a laathi (club) at the act of the accused. Thus, the medical opinion also corroborates the evidence of the injured eye witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. As such, the incident of the house trespass and breach of public peace by the provocative abuse of the inmates of the house by the accused, the act in a manner outraging the Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 27 modesty of the women members in the house and assault on the complainant (now dead), PW-1 and PW-2 by the accused with a laathi, have all been established by the prosecution.
29. The last point of argument of the learned counsel for the accused (revision petitioner), which is also an important point, is the alleged delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant before the Police.
No doubt the alleged incident is shown to have taken place at the house of the complainant at about 3:30 p.m. on the date 23-05-2010, whereas the first information is shown to have been registered by the Police only on the date 26-05-2010 at 7:30 p.m. Thus, there is a clear delay of three complete days in lodging the complaint with the Police. There is also no whisper in the complaint at Ex.P-1 regarding the delay. Similarly none of the prosecution witnesses including the injured witnesses have spoken anything about the reason for the alleged delay. Further, it Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 28 cannot be ignored of the fact that, the accused involved in the incident is a Police Constable by himself and the Investigating Officer is also a Police Officer, as such, though the Investigating Officer should have enquired as to the reason for the said delay in lodging the complaint, but like as observed above, even on this point also, the Investigating Officer has committed an omission and shown his inadequate involvement in the investigation.
However, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly speaks about the occurrence of the alleged incident and has established not only the incident, but also the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime, though there is some delay in lodging the complaint, the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the same would not cause any prejudice to the interest of the accused.
30. Our Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor and others Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 40 has observed with respect to the delayed filing Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 29 of the FIR that, the delay in filing the complaint by itself is not sufficient to reject the prosecution case, unless there are clear indications of fabrication.
31. It is appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in their proper perspective, since the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences and convicted him and confirmed the conviction respectively, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts.
32. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. It shall be neither exorbitant nor for the name-sake.
33. In the instant case, the Trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC; to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 30 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC; to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC and to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC.
34. Since it is after appreciating and analysing the materials placed before them in their proper perspective, both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court have rightly held the accused as guilty of the alleged offences and the Trial Court has ordered the sentence of imprisonment and fine proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order on sentence also in this revision petition.
35. Since it is observed that there are several latches on the part of the Investigating Officer in this matter, including the non-seizure of the Car shown to have been Crl.R.P.No.655/2013 31 used by the accused in the commission of the crime, and non-ascertaining of the alleged involvement of another colleague Police Constable in the alleged commission of the crime and non-ascertaining of the reason for the delay in lodging the complaint, and also in not getting the expert/specialist Doctors' opinion, i.e. the Ophthalmologist and also Orthopedic Surgeon, even though PW-4 has mentioned about them, it has to be inferred that the said latches are probably because the Investigating Officer was probing into a matter where the accused were also from his own Department.
In order to avoid any such repetition, the registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, State of Karnataka, for his information and needful in the matter.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER [i] The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.Crl.R.P.No.655/2013
32
[ii] The revision petitioner, i.e. accused Sri. Devaraju S/o. Chikkamuniyappa, to surrender before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore, within thirty (30) days from today and to serve the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also the Sessions Judge's Court along with their respective records, immediately.
As observed above, the registry is also directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, State of Karnataka, for his information and needful in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*