Karnataka High Court
Gopalappa vs State By Chitradurga Rural on 31 January, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.797/2015
BETWEEN:
Gopalappa
S/o Gowdappa
Aged about 36 years
R/o Hosahalli Village
Chitradurga Taluk
Chitradurga District-577 501. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri Kumara K.G. , Adv.)
AND:
State by Chitradurga Rural
Police Station-577 501.
Represented by Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri B.J. Eswarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2015 passed by
the Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in
2
Crl.A.No.86/2013 by convicting the petitioner for the
offence p/u/s 353 and 504 of IPC and etc.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Chitradurga in C.C. No.157/2012. By the said judgment and order of conviction, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 353 and 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl. Appeal No.86/2013. In the appeal, the first appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 17.6.2015 has partly allowed the appeal wherein the judgment and order of 3 conviction for the offences punishable under section 353 and 504 of IPC were confirmed and the accused has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and orders of the Courts below, this revision petition is filed.
2. Brief facts of the case is that on 05.12.2010 at about 3.30 p.m., the complainant being a Junior Engineer of PWD Department was supervising the road construction at Haliyuru Village, Chitradurga Taluk. At the time, the revision petitioner-accused being the driver of Maruthi Suzuki Swift car bearing No.KA-48/M- 6062 came in front of the said tar road. The complainant stopped the said car and told not to proceed on the road. But, at that time, the accused abused the complainant in filthy language, assaulted and pulled him. Because of this, the complainant got 4 caused simple injuries, thereby the accused obstructed to the complainant in discharging his official duties. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered and after investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and also the learned HCGP for the respondent State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submission that though the trial Court convicted the accused for the said four offences, the first appellate Court acquitted him for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 506 of IPC. However, the first appellate Court has wrongly confirmed the conviction order for offences under sections 353 and 504 of IPC. 5 When the evidence of the complainant was appreciated by the first appellate Court so far as the offence under section 324 and 506 is concerned, the first appellate Court is not correct in coming to conclusion in convicting the accused for the other two offences under sections 353 and 504 of IPC. With regard to the offences under sections 353 and 504 of IPC is concerned, no acceptable material has been placed by the complainant before the trial Court. Hence, he submitted that both the Courts below have wrongly read the evidence and came to the wrong conclusion in convicting the accused. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted to allow the revision petition and to acquit the accused even for the said two offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that with regard to the offences punishable under sections 353 6 and 504 of IPC, there are concurrent findings of the Courts below and after appreciating the factual aspect adduced before the trial Court, the Courts below have come to such conclusion. Hence, he submitted that there is no illegality for convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC which is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Hence, he submitted no merit in the revision petition and the same is to be dismissed.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and the judgment and orders of the Courts below.
7. It is no doubt true that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below. On the factual aspect, this Court in the revision petition cannot reappreciate the 7 factual material unless the grave illegality has been committed by the Courts below.
8. Let me examine the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below so far as the offences under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC are concerned. So far as the offence under section 504 of IPC is concerned, the complainant in his complaint has mentioned that when the accused was informed that the tar work was going on and he could wait for some time, then the accused abused the complainant in filthy words. Looking to his oral evidence adduced before the court below, the complainant has stated in the examination in chief that as the tar work is going on, the accused has to wait, and thereafter, he can take his car on the said road. Then the accused person told that he has to pass through the said road itself and abused him in the filthy language. Therefore, looking to the complaint and oral 8 evidence of P.W.1, there is no mention in detail as to what are the abusive words used by the accused towards complainant. Except stating that the accused abused the complainant in filthy language, the details of the said abusive words are not forth coming either in the complaint or in the deposition of P.W.1. In the absence of such abusive words mentioned either in the complaint or in the oral evidence of P.W.1 only on the basis of the vague averment in the complaint that the accused used the abusive words on the complainant, cannot be accepted and the complainant has not placed satisfactory material in proof of the said offence. Therefore, the Courts below while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC have not at all correctly appreciated the materials placed on record,. They have wrongly read the evidence adduced so also the documents. When there is wrong reading of the evidence by the Courts below, it is for the 9 revisional Court to interfere with the said judgment and orders of the Courts below.
Looking to all these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that there is no proof of the offence under section 504 of IPC with cogent and satisfactory material. Hence to that extent, the judgment and orders of the courts below is not sustainable in law.
9. So far the offence under Section 353 of IPC is concerned, perusing the material so also the judgment and orders of the Courts below, both the courts have discussed about the material in detail and have recorded the finding that the accused person came to the place of incident where the tar work was going on and at that time, the complainant told the accused because the work is going on, he cannot take his car on the said road and he has to wait for some time. The 10 accused picked up quarrel and he prevented P.W.1 in discharging his official duty. This finding recorded by the first appellate Court and the trial Court is supported by sound reasons placed on record. Even looking to the suggestion put by the learned Counsel to P.W.1 during the course of cross examination goes to show the presence of the accused person along with four wheeler vehicle at the said place. However, it was the defence of the accused that as the tar work was not properly done and the accused threatened the complainant in respect of doing the said work, otherwise, he will report the matter to the higher officers of P.W.1 and for that reason, a false complaint has been made by the complainant as against the accused person. Looking to the materials placed on record, the accused has not proved his defence with satisfactory material. Therefore, so far as the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is concerned, the revision petitioner 11 has not made the grounds to interfere with the judgment and orders of the Courts below.
10. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner on the quantum of sentence. Hence, I proceed to the pass the following order:
(i) The revision petition is allowed in part so far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and the judgment and order of the courts below are set aside. The revision petitioner is acquitted of the said offence.
(ii) In respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, the revision petition is dismissed.
(iii) Perusing the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the sentence imposed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the first appellate Court for the 12 offence punishable under section 353 of IPC, the accused, who is directed to under go S.I. for three months shall be modified. In stead of that, the revision petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, he has to undergo imprisonment for three months.
Accordingly the revision petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-