Karnataka High Court
Chandrakanth S/O Late Sangram Patil And ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 10 March, 2022
Author: K. Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200092/2016
C/w
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200023 /2017
IN CRL.RP.No.200092/2016:
Between:
1. Chandrakanth S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
2. Smt. Sheku Bai W/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 71 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
... Revision Petitioners
(By Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty, Advocate for R2;
Since petitioner No.1 dead, the petition filed by him is
abated)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka through Police
Kushnoor-T, Tq: Aurad-B, Dist: Bidar
Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor
2
2. Smt. Iramma W/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 51 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
3. Neelkant S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
4. Kum. Mahananda D/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 31 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
Sri Avinash A.Uplaonkar & Ravi K. Anoor, Advocate for R2
to R4)
This Criminal Review Petition is filed under Section
397 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated:
27/09/2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge at Bidar, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 and confirm
the Judgment of acquittal dated: 20/03/2015, passed by
the Civil Judge & JMFC at Aurad-B in C.C.No.527/2007, by
acquitting the petitioners/accused for the offences
punishable U/secs. 504, 323, 324 and 506 R/w Sec. 34 of
IPC.
IN CRL.RP.No.200023/2017:
Between:
1. Smt. Iramma W/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 50 years, Occ: House-hold
3
2. Neelkant S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Kum. Mahananda D/o Neelkant Patil
Age: 30 years, Occ: House-hold
All are R/o: Village Koriyal
Tq: Aurad-B, Dist: Bidar
... Revision Petitioners
(By Sri Avinash A.Uplaonkar & Ravi K. Anoor, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka through
Kushnoor-T Police Station
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
2. Chandrakanth S/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
3. Smt. Sheku Bai W/o Late Sangram Patil
Age: 70 years, Occ: House-hold
R/o: Village Koriyal, Tq: Aurad-B
Dist: Bidar
... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1
Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, Advocate for R3;
Since respondent No.2 dead, the petition against him is
abated)
This Criminal Review Petition is filed under Section
397 of Cr.P.C., praying to examine the records in
4
C.C.No.527/2007 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC,
Aurad(B) vide order dated:20/03/2015 modify the
judgment passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge at Bidar by its judgment order dated 27 th
September 2016 in Crl. Appeal No.29/2015 and thereby
convict the respondents Nos.2 & 3 (Accused No.1 & 2).
These petitions coming on for final hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel for the petitioners namely, Smt. Sheku Bai, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in CC No.527/2007 relating to the case in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 whereby filing of criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.R.P.No.200092/2016 by challenging the order passed by the fist appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 and whereby seeking setting aside of the order and confirm the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in CC No.527/2018 dated 5 20.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Whereas, Crl.R.P.No.200023/2017 is filed by Smt. Iramma, Neelakantha and Kum. Mahananda who are the injured and they have preferred this petition by challenging the order passed by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007 and so also the order passed by the first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015, whereby under this petition seeking to convict the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 whereby modifying the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 sentencing to pay fine amount held against accused Nos.1 and 2 by the first appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. Whereby, in this petition seeking conviction of 6 the accused for the aforesaid offences by suffering to imprisonment for the aforesaid offences in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2 in addition to sentencing them to pay fine as incorporated in the operative portions of the order.
3. Whereas, under this petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 and so also divergent finding passed by the first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 by reversal of the acquittal judgment and sentenced to pay fine for the offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, these two petitions have been taken up for passing common order.
4. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty for the petitioner No.2 in Crl.R.P.No.200092/2016 and so also the 7 counsel be directed to take notice for respondent No.3 who is arrayed as accused No.2 in the trial Court and accordingly the counsel has undertaken to file vakalat. Therefore, the counsel is permitted to file vakalat for accused No.2 in the connected Crl.R.P.No.200023/ 2017. But, accused No.1 in these two petitions and whereby arrayed as accused No.1 before the trial Court in CC No.527/2017, but the said accused died during the pendency of this revision petition initiated by the aggrieved parties, but for the death of the accused No.1 and the case against him stands abated as under Section 394 (2) of Cr.P.C. However, heard the aforesaid counsel in both the cases.
5. The factual matrix of these petitions are as under;
It transpired from the case of the prosecution that; a complaint has been initiated by the 8 complainant namely, P.W.1-Iramma and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR as per Ex.P.22 by P.W.12 being the ASI of Bagadal P.S. and subsequently the case was taken up by the investigating officer who after thorough investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused persons. Whereas, the complainant said that in his complaint that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have cut the branches of the tree grown in the backyard of the house of the complainant and when the complainant had asked the tree is belonging to the complainant, both the accused have quarreled with the complainant and P.W.2 and 3 who are husband and daughter of P.W.1 were assaulted and abused in filthy language by the accused and the accused caused grievous injures by making use of deadly weapon like stone and criminally intimidated. In pursuance of the act of the accused and the filing of 9 the complaint, a case in Crime No.54/2007 came to be registered by Kushnoor P.S. as against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
6. Subsequent to filing of a charge-sheet by the investigating officer against the accused before the Court of JMFC at Aurad, the accused was put on trial by framing charges against them and whereby the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to 18 and got marked several documents at Ex.P.1 to 27 and so also got marked M.O.1 to 4. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for explaining them to answer to the incriminating materials in terms of evidence adduced against the accused person, but the accused have denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution. 10 Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence.
7. Subsequently, the trial Court heard the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel for the accused, on close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 who are the injured and got marked their injuries certificates at Ex.P.23 and 25 and Ex.P.26, respectively and the injury certificate issued by P.W.13 being the doctor who subjected to examination relating to the injuries sustained over the person. In addition to that, P.W.18 being the doctor and he has been subjected on X-Ray on the injured as per Ex.P.10 and also X-ray film got marked at Ex.P.11. The trial Court on close scrutiny of the fulcrum of Ex.P.2, spot mahazar and so also evidence of P.W.4 and 5 and even the evidence of P.W.15 inclusive of CT Scan report at Ex.P.5 which bears the signature of 11 P.W.16 and the contents in Ex.P.22 the FIR. But, P.Ws.6 to 11 have been subjected to examination and they did not withstood the version of their statements. Therefore, their statements have been got marked as per Ex.P.16 to 21. P.W.12, who is the investigating officer received the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and based upon the complaint, he recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.22. These are all the evidence let in by the prosecution inclusive of the injury certificate at Ex.P.23, 25, 26 respectively of P.W.1, 2 and 3. On appreciation of the evidence on the part of the prosecution and the trial Court come to the conclusion that the prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile evidence for having rendering conviction against the accused. Consequently, rendered the acquittal judgment dated 20.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
12
8. The acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court has been challenged by the victim/complainant by preferring an appeal in Crl.A.No.29/2015 whereby P.Ws.1 to 3 who are injured person and they have been challenged the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court but partly allowing and consequently set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and whereby sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each of the offences whereby held conviction against accused Nos.1 and 2 which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. Whereas, in a judgment rendered by the first appellate Court exercising the power under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in respect of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and also directed not to commit such type of offences repeatedly, the same is also incorporated 13 in the operative portions of the order rendered by the first appellate Court. In addition to that, accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute bond as per Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Aurad (B) to the satisfaction of the Court. In addition to that order, the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the injured complainants and also the injured who is examined as P.Ws.1 to 3, these are all the order has been incorporated in the judgment rendered by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015. It is this judgment and also the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 has been challenged in these petitions, respectively by the accused and also the complainant and the injured has been ranked in these criminal revision petitions filed by them under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
14
9. The learned counsel Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty for accused and so also the respondent No.2/accused in the connected case in Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 has taken me through the contention made relating to the registration of the crime against the accused in Crime No.54/2007 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused by the jurisdictional police and the investigation has been done thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.527/2007. The conviction rendered by the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 by sentencing the accused by imposing fine of Rs.500/- each in respect of the offences which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. It is a surmises and conjuncture and on 15 this ground alone it requires to be intervened and seeking for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence to pay fine by the first appellate court in the aforesaid appeal.
10. The second limb of argument advanced by the counsel in this petition is that PW-1 is the complainant and PW-2 is the husband of PW-1 and PW-3 is the daughter of PW-1 and alleged that they have sustained simple injuries. But doctor who examined them and also stood for cross-examination as to such injuries inflicted over a person of an injured in case fell on the ground and also come into contact with hard object that injuries could be caused. But evidence of PW-13 being a doctor stated no bleeding injuries are found over the person of PWs1 to 3. PWs1 to 3 are the relatives of the petitioners being arraigned as accused and moreover a civil suit was pending between the parties such as the plaintiff and 16 defendant. Because of that pendency of the civil suit and also the litigation relating to immovable property, a case has been registered and the civil case has turned into criminal case by holding a prosecution against the accused and ended in conviction by sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the aforesaid counts of offences which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order passed in the aforesaid appeal. PWs-4 and 5 are the panch witnesses, PWs-6, 7 and 10 are the circumstantial witnesses whereas PWs-8, 9, 11 are the eyewitnesses relating to the incident. They have been given an evidence and all the aforesaid witnesses have treated hostile and nothing worthwhile has been elicited on the part of the prosecution and they did not support the case of the prosecution. However, the evidence of Investigating Officer has not been corroborated with any independent witness, to support the case of the 17 prosecution. Therefore, the trial court in C.C.No.527/ 2007 rendered acquittal judgment dated 20.03.2015 but the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 without appreciation of the evidence on proper perspective and also misdirected the evidence and so also misinterpreted the evidence inclusive of giving more potentiality to the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 held conviction by sentencing to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. PW-14 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused. There is no corroboration to support the case of the prosecution with independent witness. On this ground alone the judgment of conviction requires intervention. If not, the accused would be the sufferer and there shall be some substantial miscarriage of justice would arise if not intervened.
18
11. Lastly learned counsel submits that PWs- 15, 17 and 18 are the doctors and they have provided treatment to the injured complainant and also injured PWs-2 and 3. PW-16 who is a Radiologist and has also given evidence on the part of the prosecution but the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to prove by facilitating the worthwhile evidence in respect of ingredients of each offences therefore, the trial court in C.C.No.527/2007 has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and consequently rendered the acquittal judgment. But the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 has erroneously come to the conclusion without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective and also not given any credibility to the evidence of PW-13 who is a doctor and also the evidence of PWs-4 and 5 19 who are the panch witnesses and the circumstantial witness of PWs-6, 7 and 10 inclusive of the evidence of PW-14 being the Investigating Officer who conducted the spot mahazar, in the present of the panch witnesses and also secured the injury certificate of PWs-1, 2 and 3. Therefore, learned counsel submits that considering the grounds urged in this criminal revision petition which is preferred by the petitioner being the accused and so also respondent No.2 being arraigned as accused No.2 in the connected Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 and prays to set aside the order passed by the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 and consequent upon setting aside the order passed by the first appellate Court, to confirm the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 whereby held 20 acquittal of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
12. The learned counsel Sri Ravi K. Anoor for respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 and so also appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 whereby representing the counsel namely Sri Avinash A. Uploankar and so also the argument advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 respectively in both these matters are counter to the argument advanced by the counsel namely Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty that though the trial court had not considered the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 who are the injured witnesses and more so there was worthwhile evidence whereby PW-13 being a doctor who had provided treatment to them and issued wound certificate at Exs.P-23, 25 and 26. PW-13 21 being the doctor has been subjected to cross- examination on the part of the defence but there is no dispute about the injured having sustained injuries as indicated in the wound certificate and therefore the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 finds corroboration with the evidence of PW-13 who is a doctor who has provided treatment to them and issued wound certificate. PW-14 being the Investigating Officer who investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons and whereby conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P-2 in the presence of PWs-4 and 5 and whereby PW-12 subscribed his signature. PW-1 is the injured complainant. Complaint received by PW-12 and based upon the complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P-22. Injured PWs-1 to 3 have been subjected to medical treatment by doctor who is examined as PW-13 and issued wound certificate at Exs.P-23, 25 22 and 26 respectively. Therefore, their evidence are in corroboration with the evidence of PW-14 being the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet and secured the sonography report at Ex.P-7, X-Ray at Exs.P-8 and P-10, USG Study report at Ex.P-9,etc. and these are all the material evidence facilitated by the prosecution despite of which the trial court in C.C.No.527/2007 rendered the acquittal judgment without giving any credibility to the evidence of PWs1 to 3 who are the injured witnesses and more so they have sustained injuries which are indicated at Exs.P23, 25 and 26. Therefore, the trial court had erroneously given finding and rendered the acquittal judgment. The same has been challenged by the injured complainant and the other injured witnesses being examined as PW-1 to 3, by preferring an appeal before the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 whereby the first appellate court re- 23 appreciated the evidence and also analysed the averments made in the complaint at Ex.P-1 so also the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs-12 and 14 and found that their evidence is corroborated to each other and held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused whereby they had quarrel with PWs-1 to 3 and has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering a conviction judgment against the accused and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each count of the offences. Therefore, Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 preferred by the petitioners being arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 does not call for interference with the judgment rendered by the first appellate court by sentencing to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count of the offences.
24
13. In the Criminal Revision Petition, the scope are very limited because appeal is concerned there will be wider scope for re-appreciation of the evidence inclusive of oral as well as documentary evidence but Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is only subjected to intervention relating to the order passed by the trial court and whereby divergent finding said to have been issued by the first appellate Court. Even appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved person by making use of the provision of Section 372 proviso of the Cr.P.C. The first appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion and rendered conviction judgment and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the aforesaid counts of offences. Therefore the petition filed by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 does not call for interference and the petition is devoid of merits consequently prays to dismiss the petition by confirming the sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each 25 as ordered by the first appellant Court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016.
14. It is in this context of the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C.No.527/2007 and so also the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainant who are injured and have preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 and whereby seeking conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, even though sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- each has been ordered by the first appellate court.
15. However, keeping in view the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties respectively, and inclusive of the Additional SPP for the State which requires to be looked into the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far to prove 26 the guilt of the accused. There is no dispute that PW1 who is a complainant and also PWs-2 and 3 being the injured have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution before the trial court. They are alleged to have sustained some injuries indicated in Exs.P-23, 25 and 26. Though the prosecution has subjected to examination of those witnesses such as PWs-1 to 3 and moreover they have been subjected to medical treatment by PW-13 being the doctor, PW-1 has been extensively cross-examined by the defence counsel and the same has been seen in their evidence itself. PWs-1 to 3 and accused Nos.1 and 2 are the relatives to each other and there was some civil dispute pending in between them regarding to immovable property but the dispute which was civil in nature had turned into criminal in nature and consequently criminal prosecution has been initiated against the accused persons. However, the 27 prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to examination of PWs1 to 18 and also got marked several documents at Exs.P-1 to P27 inclusive of marking M.Os.1 to 4 in order to prove the guilt of the accused. PWs-1, 2 and 3 have sustained with injuries by hitting with stone. PW-1 even though has given evidence relating to the accused No.1 having assaulted with means of stone and caused injuries. PW-1 has stated in her evidence and the same has been seen in her evidence itself. After the incident PWs-1 to 3 were admitted to the Kusnoor Hospital and were treated by PW-13 doctor and were also treated in Bidar and then they were admitted to Ashwini Hospital at Solapur. PW-13-doctor issued the wound certificates Exs.P-23, 25 and 26. But PW-13 has been subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel whereby it is elicited in his evidence that there are chances of causing injures if a person come 28 in contact with hard surface as contended by the counsel for the accused. However, PW-13 had admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries indicated at Exs.P23, 25 and 26 are likely to cause if the person fell and come into contact with hard object. Therefore, the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 run contrary to the evidence of PW-13 doctor and further contradictory to the evidence of PWs-17, 18 being the doctor from Solapur and Hyderabad respectively who provided treatment and also issued X-Ray report at Ex.P-8, Sonography report at Ex.P7. But in the cross- examination of PW-18 has been elicited that the police have not collected the documents from PW-18 but the injured persons had collected the X-ray and CT-Scan report from Ashwini Hospital, Solpaur. PWs-1 to 3 themselves collected the said reports and produced the same before the trial Court where the accused were facing trial for the aforesaid offences. But PW- 29 14 being the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused had not collected the aforesaid X-Ray and CT-Scan report from the Ashwini Hospital, Solapur whereby the injured PWs-1 to 3 have been subjected to medical examination and the said Investigating Officer did not venture to collect the aforesaid X-Ray and CT-Scan report for laying charge sheet against the accused.
16. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 inclusive of evidence of PW-13 doctor and so also the evidence of PW-12 who received the complaint Ex.P-1 and recorded the FIR and went to scene of crime and thereafter PW-14 has proceeded for investigation and after completion of the investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused person, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 whereby they are the injured and given more credibility to the evidence of those witnesses to prove 30 the guilt of the accused. The first appellate court has given more credibility to the evidence of those injured witnesses inclusive of the ingredients of Section 323, 324 even stated 325 and 326 of IPC relating to scope of Section 319 and 320 of IPC whereby designated the injuries. The accused abused in filthy language and caused some grievous injuries by assaulting with stone and also extending criminal intimidation to them. The trial Court appreciated the evidence on record in C.C.No.527/2007 and rendered acquittal judgment relating to the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
17. The prosecution, in all examined PWs-1 to 18 and given more credibility to the evidence of PWs- 1 to 3 who are the injured persons who sustained injuries as indicated in the wound certificate Exs.P23, 31 25 and 26. PWs-1 to 3 are the relatives of the petitioners being arraigned as accused and more so there was a civil suit pending amongst them because of the immovable property which was emerged in between the injured and the accused. But criminal case has been registered by the complainant by filing the complaint and prosecution has been launched and the case in C.C.No.527/2017 had ended in acquittal by giving findings and by assigning reasons for the acquittal of the accused. The judgment rendered by the trial Court was challenged by the complainant by preferring an appeal before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 whereby the first appellate Court set aside the acquittal judgment of the trial Court in its order dated 27.09.2016 and rendered conviction judgment by sentencing the accused to pay fine of Rs.500/- each which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order.
32
18. PWs-4 and 5 are the panch witnesses, PWs-6, 7 and 10 are the circumstantial witnesses and PWs-8, 9 and 11 are the eyewitnesses and they have stated in their evidence and their evidence has been closely scrutinized. Even if re-appreciated their evidence and they have not supported the case of the prosecution relating to the accused having committed the alleged offences and more so the evidence is corroborated by supporting with independent evidence relating to securing the conviction. PW-12 being Investigating Officer who received the complaint at Ex.P-1 and criminal law was set into motion, thereafter PW-14 Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused. There is no corroborating evidence in respect of the theory of the prosecution by examining any independent evidence and the same can be seen in the evidence of prosecution. PWs1 to 3 who are the injured witnesses, have been subjected to 33 medical examination by PWs-15, 17 and 18. But their evidence has not been corroborated with any independent witness.
19. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it is extensively addressed the issues insofar as Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also, circumstantial evidence and even benefit of doubt in detail.
20. In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali 34 Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations:
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
21. Whereas Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that merit of the statement is important and it is well known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement. Solitary statement means there shall be some credibility of the witnesses and based on the solitary statement of a witness, if Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and 35 correct version of the case of the prosecution, it can be considered, it is the domain of the trial Court.
22. Plurality of witnesses - in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. But the fact means the facts stated in the complaint and equally fulcrum of the facts drawn in the mahazar by the investigating officer
23. However, in the instant case, on close scrutiny of evidence of PWs1 to 3 who are injured and more so the evidence of PW-12 who received the complaint at Ex.P-1 and based upon the complaint criminal law was set into motion and therefore the Investigating Officer taken up the case for 36 investigation and investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused. Subsequent to the charge sheet being laid by the Investigating Officer, the accused faced the trial before the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 whereby the trial Court after appreciating the evidence facilitated by the prosecution inclusive of the medical evidence and so also the documents marked, rendered an acquittal judgment for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion in rendering an acquittal judgment. However, the petition is preferred by the petitioners/accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and also the petition is filed by the injured PWs1 to 3 by challenging the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 and inclusive of the divergent finding issued by the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015. However, the 37 domain vested with the first appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence and also to closely scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution even oral and documentary, but the first appellate Court was misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence and rendered a conviction judgment by sentencing to pay fine of Rs.500/- which is indicated in the operative portion of the judgment of the first appellate Court. Therefore, the petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 contended for intervention. If not intervened, certainly the accused will be the sufferer and more so there shall be some substantial miscarriage of justice would arise. Accordingly, it needs to be interfered.
24. Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 is filed by PWs 1 to 3 who are the injured challenging the divergent finding issued by the first appellate 38 Court in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 by rendering the conviction judgment and seeking intervention of the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015. Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/ 2016 is filed by the accused challenging the conviction judgment rendered by the first appellate Court and confirming the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. The contentions made in this Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 do not hold any substance to interfere as sought for. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016 filed by the accused is allowed.39
Consequently, the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Principal District and Session Judge, Bidar is hereby set aside and the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Aurad-B is hereby confirmed.
Consequent upon allowing the Criminal Revision Petition No.200092/2016, that the Criminal Revision Petition No.200023/2017 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, shall stand cancelled.
SD/-
JUDGE BL/swk/RSP