Karnataka High Court
Anil Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100103 OF 2014 (397)
BETWEEN:
ANIL KUMAR
S/O. HUNUMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHELLAGURKI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING
TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.57/2013 DATED 14.3.2014 ON THE
FILE OF II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY AND THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELLARY
IN C.C.NO.601/2012 DATED 13.3.2013 AND SET THE
PETITIONER AT LIBERTY.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 05.09.2022 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 R/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment dated 14.03.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.57/2013 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballary and the judgment and order of conviction passed in CC.No.601/2012, dated 13/3/2013 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballary.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 17.9.2011 in the evening at 5.20 PM when the complainant was on his duty as Deputy Director of Horticulture Department and discharging his duty in his office chamber, at that time, the accused came there and demanded him to give money for consuming alcohol and when the complainant refused to give money, the accused abused the complainant in foul language and thrown the chappal towards the complainant. Thus, the accused has committed alleged offences.
-3-CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014
3. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 355 and 504 of IPC and a case was registered in CC.No.601/2021. Charge is framed by the learned Magistrate and the same is read over to the accused. The accused pleaded guilty and claims to be tried. To prove the case of the prosecution, 19 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 19. 22 documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to 22 and one material object got marked as M.O.1 On closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is put to question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the evidence appearing against him, accused has denied the evidence appearing against him, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. However, submitted his written statement, in which he has denied the alleged incident, and further submitted that he being social worker, has inquired as to the subsidy to be allotted to the farmers through phone to the complainant, and he is a responsible citizen in the office of CW.1, and the concerned officer has misappropriated the amount of four crores, which pertains to the sanction of subsidiary to the -4- CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014 farmers. Since, he has questioned the same through phone, the complainant has filed false complaint against him only to harass him.
4. On hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 355, 353 and 504 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has preferred the criminal appeal before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballary in Crl.A.No.57/2013. Same was dismissed on 14/3/2014. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that both Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 to 6, 15 and 17 does not corroborated with each other, and their version taken during the cross examination of both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective manner. On these grounds, he sought for allowing the revision petition.
-5-CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014
6. Alternatively, it is submitted that, if this Court come to the conclusion that the order of convictions passed by both the courts are in accordance with law, then this Court can extend the benefit of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the accused has not convicted for any offences prior to this alleged incident. At the time of alleged commission of offences, age of the accused was 28 years. Hence, he sought for release of the accused on the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
7. As against this, learned Addl. SPP submits his arguments that both Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and hence, he sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.
9. PW.1-P.S.Kulkarni said to be the complainant, examined as PW.1. He has deposed in his evidence as to the alleged incident as stated in Ex.P.1-complaint. He has also deposed as to the contents of panchanama-Ex.P.2 and 6 -6- CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014 photos snapped at the time of conducting mahazar, which are marked as Exs.P.3 to 8. PW.2-Umapath and PW.3-Bommappa @ Bomanna, who are working as guard and attender in the department of Horticulture said to be attesters to the panchnama and also eye witnesses to the alleged incident have partly supported to the case of prosecution. C.W.5-Ramesh Kumar, FDA in Horticulture department, C.W.6-Rajeshkumar, Assistant Horticulture Officer working in the department of Horticulture have said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have treated as partly hostile witnesses and cross examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. During the cross examination, these witnesses have clearly stated that they have not witnessed alleged incident. CW.8-Vedamurthy and CW.9-Iqbal Ibrahimsab working as drivers in the Horticulture department examined as PWs.7 and 8. CW.11-Tippareddi, retired Assistant Horticulture Officer, CW.13-Phaniraj, agricultural officer working in the Horticulture department examined as PW.10. CW.15-Muddangouda-ex-president of HOPCOM examined as PW.11. CW.10-Neelappa, Assistant Horticultural Officer -7- CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014 examined as PW.12. CW.14-Parameshwarappa, Assistant Horticultural Officer examined as PW.13. CW.17-Suryanarayan working in Horticultural department examined as PW.14. CW.16-Gali Shankrappa, director of HOPCOM examined as PW.16. CW.18-Narendra said to be attester to the panchanama examined as PW.16. CW.12-Sunder Reddi examined as PW.19, they have not supported to the case of prosecution. CW.18- Narendranath examined as PW.17. He has deposed in his evidence as to the issuance of attendance certificate, which is marked as EX.P.9. CW.19-Bhaskar Rai-Circle Inspector of Police examined as PW.15. He has deposed in his evidence with regard to the investigation and also deposed as to the filing of the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by both the Courts as to the order of conviction for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 355, 353 and 504 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgments do not call for interference by this Court.
10. With regard to sentence passed by the trial Court is concerned, the trial Court has sentenced the accused to -8- CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014 under go simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. Further the accused is imposed with the sentence to under go simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC, further the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned the reasons on imposing imprisonment and not extended the benefit of provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has also not assigned any reasons for extending the benefit of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
11. The order sheet of the trial Court reveals that the accused was in juridical custody from 17/9/2011 till 10/10/2011. The accused already deposited fine amount of -9- CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014 Rs.4,500/- on 13/3/2013. The alleged offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for two years or fine or both. Offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for two years or fine or both. It is undisputed fact that at the time of commission of offences, the age of the accused was 28 years and he is an agriculturist, and he is permanent resident of Challagurki village of Ballari taluk, and having no antecedents in this regard.
12. The written statement submitted by the accused at the time of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not considered by both the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, which reveals that the accused is a social worker and also he is member of Dalith Sangharsh Sameethi of Ballary District since the alleged offences are punishable with two years imprisonment or fine, absolutely there is no bar to extend the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In this regard I have relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in B.S.Narayanan vs. State of A.P. reported in 1987 SCC (Cri) 791, A.Gnanasikhamony vs. Palukal
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014 Panchayat reported in AIR 1970 Madras 360 and Chandreshwar Sharma vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 9 SCC 245, keeping in the mind period of judicial custody of this accused, and also fine already deposited by the accused, the nature and gravity of offences, antecedents of the accused prior to this alleged incident, I am of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to release the accused under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on due admonition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Revision Petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are modified. Accused is ordered to be released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on due admonition.
iii) Fine amount, if any deposited by the accused shall be remitted to the Government. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the trial Court is modified.
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100103 of 2014
iv) Send back records to both Courts below along with copy of the order passed in this Revision Petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE VB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3