Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1044/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
2. OBAPPA
S/O BENGALURU MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. DORESWAMY
S/O OBALAPPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O OBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
5. ASHWINI
W/O DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
6. PADMAMMA
W/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENCE OF
BETTAGEREHALLI VILLAGE
MULABAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 536 131.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. RAMASWAMY., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MULBAGAL RURAL POLICE
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
DISMISSAL ORDER DATED:02.02.2019, S.C.NO.1/2018
IN II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL COURT), KOLAR AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS FILED U/S 311 OF
CRPC, BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Ramaswamy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri S Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent.
2. When the matter was set down for arguments before learned trial Judge in Special Case No.1/2018 registered for the offence punishable 3 under Sections 143, 376, 307 read with 149 IPC, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the accused which has since been dismissed by impugned order dated 02.02.2019. Being aggrieved by said order, petitioner is before this Court.
3. As could be seen from the application, petitioner is seeking for recall of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5, 10, 12 & 15 to 17. Since P.W.1 expired, question of recall of P.W.1 does not arise. Reason which has been assigned for recall of other witnesses is on the ground that victim girl was recalled on 22.11.2018 and she has now revealed the truth and as such, deposition of P.W.2 requires to be confronted to remaining prosecution witnesses inasmuch as, there is likelihood of trial court relying upon deposition of other witnesses only to convict the accused. On perusal of deposition of P.W.2 recorded on 22.11.2018 would disclose she has reiterated her statement made before the jurisdictional Magistrate 4 namely, statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also her deposition tendered before Court. In other words, she has reiterated allegations made by her in the complaint - Ex.P-1. It is trite law that prosecution will have to prove those facts alleged against the accused and on the basis of hear say evidence which may not be corroborated by the victim, it cannot be gain said by the prosecution that accused deserves to be convicted for the offences alleged. Thus, it would be open for the trial Court to evaluate the evidence tendered by the prosecution and also take into consideration deposition of P.W.2 which has since been recorded on 22.11.2018 and proceed to adjudicate keeping in mind the judicial precedents. Hence, question of recalling P.Ws.3 to 5, 10, 12 & 15 to 17 does not arise. Reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge to reject the prayer would not call for interference as it is based on sound appreciation of facts and law. No other good ground 5 is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp