Karnataka High Court
Kapu Hanumakka vs State By Pattanayakanahalli Police on 21 April, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.317/2011
BETWEEN:
1. KAPU HANUMAKKA
W/O DIBBANNA, HOUSEWIFE
AGED 25 YEARS, LAKKANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK.
2. KAPU RAMESHA
S/O DIBBANNA, 28 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
LAKKANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK.
3. KAPU GUJJARAPPA
S/O DIBBANNA, 25 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
LAKKANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK.
4. GOVINDAPPA
S/O NARASAPPA, 25 YEARS, COOLIE
LAKKANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK.
5. RAJANNA
S/O NARASAPPA, 21 YEARS, COOLIE
LAKKANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N.CHANDRANNA., ADVOCATE FOR M/S. SUBHASH &
RAJESH ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
2
AND:
STATE BY PATTANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE
SIRA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 20.01.2011, PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1/2009, ON THE FILE
OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I AT
TUMKUR & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners arrayed as accused 1 to 3, 6 & 10 along with accused 4, 5, 7 to 9, 11 & 12 were tried for offences punishable under sections 143, 332, 342 & 504 r/w 149 IPC. The learned Magistrate convicted accused 1 to 12 for aforstated offences. Therefore, they were before I- appellate court. The learned Judge of I-appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction made by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, they are before this court. 3
2. I have heard Sri N.Chandranna, learned counsel for accused 1 to 3, 6 & 10 and Sri Nasrullah Khan, learned HCGP for State.
3. This revision petition is against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The law is fairly well settled that this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioners.
4. The entire case of prosecution rests upon evidence of PW3-M.Ramachandra, who was the Police Constable on duty.
5. PW3-M.Ramachandra has deposed; on 15.05.2007 at about 8 p.m., he had visited Yaraguntepalya Village, within the jurisdiction of Pattanayakanahalli Police Station; when PW3 reached middle of village, he found 8 persons sitting in 4 a circular form and they were keeping matka chart and playing matka; after seeing PW3, those people ran away; PW3 was able to catch hold four persons; two of them ran away towards Lakkanahalli Village; PW3 chased them; two other police constables were following him; at that time, one woman (accused No.1) and ten persons came, fisted and trampled PW3 and wrongfully confined PW3 in a room; accused 1 to 3 & 10 persons had dragged and trampled PW3; other police constables came and rescued PW3; PW3 lodged first information and also identified accused.
During cross-examination, PW3 has reiterated the version given in examination-in-chief. PW3 has identified accused 1 to 3.
6. The medical evidence of PW7-Dr.Sheshagiri Naik reveals that on 16.05.2007 at about 1 p.m., (afternoon), PW7 examined PW3-M.Ramachandra in Primary Health Centre at Pattanayakanahalli Village and found following injuries:- 5
I. Tenderness and swelling on upper part of left side of back of body II. Tenderness present on lower part of right side of body III. Tenderness and swelling on left side of chest near sternum bone.
The above injuries found on PW3 could be caused by fisting.
7. The independent witnesses, who are villagers of Lakkanahalli Village have not supported the case of prosecution, which is quite natural. The immediate post- occurrence witnesses, who had gone to rescue PW3 have deposed injuries suffered by PW3.
8. PW3 did not have grudge or grievance against accused. PW3 has identified accused 1 to 3 as persons who had prevented him from discharging his duties by using criminal force. The evidence given by PW3 against accused 6 & 10 is vague. The courts below have recorded guilt of accused 6 & 10, without there being any substantive evidence. The courts 6 below have held accused 1 to 3, 6 & 10 guilty of offences punishable under sections 143, 332, 342 & 504 r/w 149 IPC. The evidence on record does not reveal that accused had formed into unlawful assembly. The accused were in their village. It cannot be said that they were members of unlawful assembly. The accused were not anticipating arrival of PW3. The evidence of PW3 that accused 1 to 12 were playing matka is vague. The evidence of PW3 does not reveal that accused 1 to 3, 6 & 10 had wrongfully confined him in a room. PW3 has not deposed that room had no other exit and he was not able to come out of room. The evidence on record does not indicate that accused had criminally intimidated PW3.
9. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, I find accused 1 to 3 had committed an offence punishable under section 353 IPC by using criminal force to prevent PW3 from discharging his duties as a public servant. There is no evidence against accused 1 to 3, 6 & 10 for offences punishable under sections 143, 332, 342 & 504 r/w 149 IPC. The courts below 7 have recorded guilt of accused, without there being any evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment requires modification.
10. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The revision petition is accepted in part. Accused 1 to 3, 6 & 10 are acquitted of offences punishable under sections 143, 332, 342 & 504 r/w 149 IPC. Accused 1 to 3 are convicted for an offence punishable under section 353 r/w 34 IPC. Accused 1 to 3 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under section 353 r/w 34 IPC. If accused 1 to 3 have deposited the fine amount in terms of the judgment of trial court, the same shall be appropriated towards fine imposed in terms of this judgment. The bail bonds executed by accused 6 & 10 stand cancelled. If accused 6 & 10 have deposited the fine amount in terms of the judgment of trial 8 court and confirmed by I-appellate court, the same shall be refunded to them.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN