Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayakanth S/O Kannan vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 CRI. L. J. 1224, (2009) 74 ALLINDCAS 654 (KAR), 2009 (1) AIR KANT HCR 185, 2009 (74) ALLINDCAS 654, (2008) ILR (KANT) 5197, (2009) 1 ALLCRILR 751
zm $53 3:95 5052? 3? KARfiATAKA AT BANQRLORE, aawaa THIS $55 Emézmi G? JULY, 2038* *ff 7 BE VI"! 'ORE:
THE H®N'BLE MR. £USTEC£ é»S,_?ACHH§?URE CREME%AL Raqzszow ?ETZTEQ§ Né}g§§ EC} 'Y!' .m.
.«m r N m gggwzzgz Jayakanth, S/Q. Kannan, Aged abQat m yeara, No.247, 16" Gregg, 1 u' «,g 3 B Mdlfl, U.Q.fl#fidL 2 ;Stagm,V 'Hm Bangalore. _.g 2f_q *j_ E. ,*,W , W PETITEGNERXS {By M/3. Rameshéfiandga é SL$}Ba%avaraju, Advs.} AN3:
State sf Karfiataka] _ By J.?;Nagara Felice Station, ufiy Pu%ii?WF£?secmtc:y* m RESPONDEN?/S 'ijBy Sxi;_Rameéh,Kumar, HCGP.§ «imiwk A?§is Crl.R.?. is fiied aXSecticn 3g? r/w. 403 V",Cr{P,C{§by the Advecate for the petitioner paying :9 set aside tfie Grder dt. 3.3.2905 passed by the V =_§ddi; C.M.M., Bangalere, in C.C. NG.12&93/2081 and ucemfirmedT by[ the P.O., FTC VI [Sessions Judge}, Bamgalcre, in Cri.R. No.386f2GQ5 by Order dt. n'*&;:.2eo5.
This C:l.R.P. cwming on far Further Haaring thig day, the Smart made thé falicwing: iiturnimfiigm paint, i ii is allagad that the Vgéaifiisnerffiacused blinkad his eye and asked bar ta he has np'sehse of humanity and shcwed her ieg and "~,¢happalL_ 3 The petitioner enraged, came near her _beamtiful lady. we also threateneé he: fix: kidnap , and defaca by pouring acid. He abused her in fiithy The petitisner has chaliengeé his ;Qnv7'Q'V and fieatence for the offence puniSha§ia=_Qnda: V Sectian 33% 19C on a trial heid"5y"théu£ddi;iC.MjM;g Bamgaiora, and confirmed. byi tfie 7?é3t ifréck zfii Bangalore, in Cri.A. No.38$j2&$5.A"
2. The facts zelevamt"£§ru3he purpofié of the petitiwn are as under:WH".
Shiipa _V§a§§i, iP.%}3§ _ isi tfié resideat of J.?.Nagar, 1$an§aiofie,_Réfidi"is 7:59 Sister of Viaod
-v 3 Kumar 'P{%;;
3'13 Shiipa Rani was 3} iiEhe",fiusbahfi"Vo warkingfiin Ifimkuhianfi fin 2?.O§.200i at 5.30 p.m., she had gone to éefitaifitlinic along with her brather P.fi.1;3£fi w%iia Ehey were returning, at 3}P.Nagar acC0m§an§.him;i She got angry and asked him whether sufidémiy, pulled her stole calling her as a language and when hex brother §.W.E intervenefi, he ran away' fr0mT the spot. E2. is thereafterg<,§,%g an informed her paraats and than &@pEGaC§€fi fih€u!QiiCQ' W Station and submitted her camplgint [€:;§;?{xwfiiah' {"~~'\* came to be registered by P.%.é in Cfiime N§}335f2ug¢ Ln far the offenca under Sectiega §Q§f"5§g€W§§4, I?C and he sent the CGm§2ai§Ex@EHfP2§W%fifl€tfifi F.;.R. [Ex.P3§ to the Magisfifiétefl §éfW,§ v:site§ the agot an the next day in th§_&Q:5§fi§ 355 gfi the presence of ?.W.2 and gfid§§€r hel§ fifié éyfifiymahazar {Ex.?1] and recordéfifl €h§"w§tafi颢fi% dfH fihe witnesses. He arrest@¢"'Eh6:i@C$§$e&?»§nd «fiftég completion of the investigétion; f1iéd'the_¢harge sheet. Baring uChe*~trial, the prosecution led the * évidénéei by" examiéifig ?.W$.1T to 4 and. got marked €Q¢&méatS £zé,?1 to 3. The séaiement of the accuged was récorfiéd ufider Saction 313 Cr.?.C. He has taken 'u_ the defiefige of tatal denial and did not lead any "n évidénce in his defence.
?he Trial Céurt by the Judgment and Order dated "VQé!S3.2GQ5 convicted the §etitioner for the offence punishabla under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergc simple imprisonmént for a period sf one 54 3e4s "
_Vi$;
yea: and is pay fine ef Rs.§,GGS~G§, in default to pay Ehe fiae amount to underge S.£. fer 3 mcnthe. He was ecquitteée ef the charges fer the Heffeece punishable under Sections 56%, 506 and "S? _ ¥.5x Sessions Court in Cxl.A. No 386?2§G5.i'-- The_ eaifl appeal came to be eismissed on merits. Eggrieveflxby, the conviction anfi ceefirmetien,.the petitioner has appreached this Court 5bye"weynee§fl_fihie revisien petitien.
3. E @a%eeheerd fhe Eeereed ceuesel fer the petitioner efid aged the gearneé Government Fleeder.
4. The peiht'tfiafijarises fer my censieeratien j 'krwfiefiheg the Jnégment and Order xeqoflfiiétififi the petitiener for the "effehee finder Section 354 I?C and the seefience thereen is illegal and "perverse?
5. It is the conteniien of the iearnee ceunsel 4*for the petitiefier teat he has been faiseiy imglieated and that there is no evidence ta base the conviction. He submits that there is delay' ef 3 _ef Prebetien efwfififenders Act he extendee, 30 that 'rhe COuid_reEerm in future.
ebeiow and that the petitiener has not made cut aey "groeede te warrant the interference. It is also his "Vcqnfientien that no women goee to the Peiice Statiee ~_with the aiiegetion of outraging the medesty and to hours in ledging the complaint and the said eelay has not been eregeriy expieined. EL ~ie"afi:e contentien that the delay has been Vesgéfiv gs' disadvantage by the Envesfi;ge:in§ W"eeee y QVteu' implicate the petitiener in tee eriee;.wiL'i$,eje furihe: eententien that vfheye vezex me ifi@$@eeeeet, witnesses examined by the presecufiioe fie euefiort the interested versioe ofaéewsylieeeefife Se eieo it is his contention that theeeeefeimafifieegeerepancies in the evidence and fleet the épcé eeheeer Ex.P1 has net been pxoved. eed_"inu,:ee,"ci;cemstances, he submits that the "ceeviC%iefiy is hiilegal and perverse. Alternatively' g§. =;fiefi;:s that taking inte censideratiom :he.aqe of the petitioner, the benefit '"5; "Tee leerned Government Pieader submits that there are Cdhcerreet finding of fact by the courts cause disrepute fer herself and tee fact that ?.W.3 5/\,.
W, went ts the Peiice Station is a ettong circumetaeces and that there is me necessity fa: Cerroboratiefliof such evidence.
necessary to note that the ineideet toot §ia$e_Em the evenin at 3.38 .m. e§fi_the eempieimt Came tea} 9 § . .. - . . M be filed by P.W.3 on the same éeg at 8.4S"p:e. This fact is clear" frem the "ceetehte' Q5 Wthe Cempiaint EEX.?2], evideuneie ._Q& 59316 33%' Seen from the cemeleitt}" ea :;h@"iga:§ t¢f the incident P.W.3 hed_gQfie Ce ghé éettailgiinic and the incident oecurrefi_at--tfie,timeiwfieg--ehe was returning to her §eside§ce'eiung"wit$itetitrothe: P.W.1. S0, efter the incident e§e"etates that she went ts her home, 'e :nfo:mea¥*hé:« parents and thereafter went to the §QIieeV*3tetie§;§ This fact has been epeken. to by P.W;3 in her evidence as weii. So, the contents Qf it«_!t§e comgiaint have been Cezroborated by the evidence "':_efxEiW33. Though P.W.1 does not say about this fact 'einiihie evidence, there is nothing as such to say uvttet his evidence is inconsistent with the evidence ef P.W.3. In the crass-examinatien he states that after the incident, he went to the Qolice Station K
5. -As regards the first ~cQnteetiea} it jig inconsistency iii the eviéence ti' ?.§s.1 and Z3 and 'r_éhe_§¢§té§t§~9f the eomplaint [Ex.?2]. Furthermore, i"~,persens wee are either the victims or the persons i4_wfie are filing the cemelaint. There will be some i*_ anxiety re the victim and therefore they never go to t"u»u"the Pelice Station immediately. P.%.3 being a lady, and easing this version of P.W.1 it is contended by the learned counsel fer the petitioner that teere.is inconeistency in tee evidence of P.W5i§" age: 3;:
wherein P.W.3 states that first she went te her ieeeiV and then to the ?oiice Station aea §;e;1<§t§§e;at5§£] after the incident he went to the PoliC§tstatiea;* But, P.W.1 had made it Jeiear *ie*.thefl &r§ss~ examination that he "first; egg; itg tee"*heeae and thereafter went to ithe Kfieiiaai Station. fhe inconsistency" r8i3e@_gfifi§e€been;[@NfxQ#ed by further question of {fie éetitieaggrgtfiaaeaei and therefere, whatever ineeeeieeepcgifiieaeee fies been clarified by P.W.1 in' hie rfertherlieress-examination. In the circumstafieee, I= fie .fiet4Jfiné that there is any the gfaetx theta the cemplaint has to be fiied immediately fie? not be within the knowledge ef the aged about 2% years, it is quite natural for her to inform te her parents about the iecideet first and \___v_ then go to the Paiice Statien along with members of her family. Thia would be the natural cendaea7en the part of the victim, wherein. tfieref;ia3g*_ allegatiena as regards eutragiag her_iuedeatyg . Ia--a the circumstances, E do not think that there ia_afiy' such delay in lodging the eemplaint and aaag thefig§l= there is a delay of an hour a; so, it eaaaet be said that it is deliberate} a
8. The learaed,éeuaael,fQrltaeaeetitioner as regards the_iinfieresEedaireratoallef P.%a.l and 3 states teat aa¢§gvia§5aa'a§a eat been corroborated by the evieeaee er aa§Vindependent witnesses. The investigatienrefieaiartfiaf C.W.3 was a gerson, who witnessed the_ineideht and he is not a relative of Véithera E;W;1. er [email protected]. He was examined by the laveatiqativa Agency and his statement was recorded.
Duriua the trial, the aummena was issued to C.W.3 at lV._ the first instance and later as he could not appear, 'Wé aee~bailable warrant was alse issued. The reyorta vieaeal that the aenwbailable warrant was not "aeaeCated solely because the address was met known and the witness was not available, thereby it cannot be said that there is any fault on the part of the 11
9. The learned counsel further contended that the evidence cf P.fis.E and 3 dees not prove elt the ingreeients of the offence uneer Sectiennw35éntE?CL, The perusal of the provisien reveal that there must*V be either criminal force znr essaui:jcgfifleny*wwman, intenéing to outrage the mefiesty and in Gese if this = much of evidence is aveilette, the.:efteneeVWunéer Section 35% 19C staneexnrenedetfifiy'loekinfi t0 the incident as stated by etfistfi end § ie their evidence and aieo in the aiieeetiene_tn,tegeeomplaint, she states that tee netfittenetfaeeneed elinked his eyes at her and wnee ehe_teie]nimethet he has no sense sf numanitf_ané s3¢ee§*§éf leg and chappel {footweat}, the accused suddenly dragged her state and abused in filthy; ianguaqen end "threatened te kidnap her and VW also Rdiefiqnxe her face by throwing acid. As ieqegdé' these _eontents in the compieint, in the evidence,.P{E;3 states substantially all these words t"« and the_ fact that the stale was dragged and 't«_uItimetely the accused threatened her te kidnap and *_ fie fdisfigexe her face by threwing aeie. In my "eensidered opinion, it is the criminal force used by the accused in eutraging the modesty, particularly when, a woman was preceeding on the road and the M\'_/ accepted _to 'ouer¢cmé the findings of the Courts Viséiow:
i".,emder Seetion £01 Cr.P.C. are limited. This Court t"._Cennetf.re~appreciate the evidence and unless the iW_"§et;tioner establishes that there is an error ieppareet on the face of the record er there is such 12 accused blinked the eyes at her and dragged her steie, Considering the reputation cf the wemeeg I feel that it is an act of outraging tne"k§Qeest3Hx So, there was criminai force used to _§g:;gget tteiit medesty of p.e.3 by blinking much of the evidence >.tas:e,eeen3 .tekee'itifite*u consideratien by both tfieF, Ceurts>.ibeieeWs and ultimately ConviCtiOfl"W;S ,ewa§fiea»«fur tthe* offence unfier Section 354 IPC! _regteé:fi§$e, the getitioner was unknown te_tne gietie eeri;e£*te the incident and therefore there age fie reggae; ter the victim to falseiy impiiaete tee fietitienet. Therefore, 1 am of the opinion flthet 'the *eontention raised by the leareed counsel< fen Vthe petitioner cannot be $,ifi}irgft is well estabiishee principle of law that the powers of revisien vested with this court illegality or perversity in the Grder ef the Courts ;
:%' I 16 GREEK ?he getiticn is allowed in part. %ffixm;:%""
conviction, the aentence 13 m0difi§§V,afid 4?heu petitioner is ordered to undargb simpie impriscfikénf fer a period GE 3 months §§d K§§ p§y f:é§i"O Rs.:s,oa@-»<se. "rm learned submits that the amoun§ cf figé<§a§ beéfi=de§osited. If it is so, the pe€i%iafig§;;h§$®f%§& undergo the sentence and in Cage gf {fig afi§g§fi~%f fine is mat deposited, i¢,$e§§§§t~§¢ §§de:g§.S§%§ie imprisonm@§t for Gne m@§£§ffl_z§?h@ ffi%fi :¢¢§:t is directed ta sacure tfie pféééggé of éég accused ts underga the sentence.
sall-
'Judge Ksm* ¥"1':'-