Karnataka High Court
Smt Savithramma vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2023
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRL.R.P. NO.861 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SAVITHRAMMA
W/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
MUNICIPAL MEMBER
R/O HASAMANE
BHDADRAVATHI.
Digitally signed
by B A 2. HEMANTHA KUMAR
KRISHNA
KUMAR S/O SOUDEPUTTA
Location: High
Court of AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
Karnataka
R/O JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA
5TH CORSS, HOSAMANE
RIGHT SIDE, BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
PIN - 576 126.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.N. RADHA KRISHNA., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHADRAVATHI PAPER
TOWN POLICE, BHADRAVATHI
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, IN
C.C.NO.2382/2010 DTD. 11.11.2011 AND CONFIRMED IN
CRL.A.NO.902/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI, DTD.
22.09.2014.I.A.NO.1/2014.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Civil Judge & Addl. JMFC, Bhadravathi, in C.C.No.2382/2010, and the judgment and order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in Crl.A.No.902/2011.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition are, on 21.12.2009 at about 2.30 p.m., while CWs-1 & 2 were sitting in Ganapathi Pendal at Paper Town, Bhadravathi, the petitioners allegedly called from their mobile phone bearing No.970555602 to the mobile phone of the complainant bearing No.9741885868 and abused him in filthy language and also threatened to kill him. In this regard, a complaint was lodged, based on which the police had registered the case against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Sections -3- CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014 506, 120-B read with 34 IPC. After investigation, the police had filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 506 read with 34 IPC.
4. Since the petitioners claimed to be tried before the Trial Court, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses as PWs-1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents in support of its case as Exs.P-1 to P-5. In support of the defence, no evidence was led nor any document was marked. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 11.11.2011 had convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, petitioners had preferred Crl.A.No.902/2011 which was dismissed by the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, on 22.09.2014. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this revision petition before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC. He submits that the -4- CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014 complainant was not examined before the Trial Court and based on the evidence of PWs-1 & 6 who are only hear-say witnesses, the Trial Court has recorded the order of conviction which is bad in law. He submits that PWs-1 & 6 could not have heard the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant, as the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened the complainant over phone. He submits that the complaint averments do not disclose that PWs-1 & 6 had an occasion to hear the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant and their very presence at the spot becomes very doubtful having regard to the nature in which their name is inserted in the complaint.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and has prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the trial, the complainant - Nataraj had died. The prosecution in -5- CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014 order to establish its case against the petitioners, therefore, had solely relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 & 6 who are said to have over-heard the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant - Nataraj. PWs-1 & 6 have stated that the complainant had put his phone on loud speaker, and therefore, they could over-hear the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant.
9. In normal course, if a person is speaking to the other over mobile phone, it would not be possible for others to over- hear the conversation unless his phone is put on loud speaker. From the perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the complainant has not stated that he had put his phone on loud speaker when the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened him on the date of incident. In fact, the name of PWs-1 & 6 appears to have been subsequently inserted in the complaint which gives rise to a doubt as to the very presence of the said witnesses at the spot when the petitioners allegedly are said to have abused and threatened the complainant over phone. Except the evidence of PWs-1 & 6, there is no other material to prove that the petitioners have abused and threatened the complainant over phone. The conversation between the -6- CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014 petitioners and the complainant has not been recorded. Therefore, when the very presence of these witnesses i.e., PWs-1 & 6, becomes doubtful, having regard to the insertion made in the complaint and also having regard to the fact that the complainant had not mentioned in the complaint that he had put is mobile phone on loud speaker at the time of alleged conversation between himself and the accused persons, the courts below could not have recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC solely based on the deposition of PWs-1 & 6.
10. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:
11. This revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & Addl. JMFC, Bhadravathi, in C.C.No.2382/2010, and the judgment and order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in -7- CRL.RP No. 861 of 2014 Crl.A.No.902/2011, are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the offence under Section 506 IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK