Karnataka High Court
Smt.Manjula A Naikar vs George William Sade on 22 April, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.740/2013
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA A NAIKAR
D/O ANANDAPPA NAIKAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE R/A NO. NWC 116/A
NEAR BALA BHARATHI
NEW COLONY, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANTHA H S, ADV.)
AND:
1. GEORGE WILLIAM SADE
S/O SHANTHAVEERPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. SMT. VIJAYA KUMARI
W/O OMPRAKASH, 44 YEARS
RESP. NO.1 & 2 ARE
R/O HOSASIDDAPURA
NEAR BYE-PASS ROAD
BHADRAVATHI - 577 303
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NEW TOWN P.S.
BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 301. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADV.)
2
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
06.03.2013, PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT, BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.139/2011 & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal of respondents.
2. I have heard Sri.Prashanth H.S. learned counsel for complainant and Sri.V.Vishwanath Shetty, learned counsel for accused.
3. In a decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 1140 (in the case of Sheetala Prasad and Others Vs. Sri Kant and Another), the Supreme Court has held :-
"9. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the 3 prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.
In these cases, or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered."
4. In the case on hand, the complainant is the sister-in-law of second accused. In other words, the younger brother of complainant namely Om Prakash is the husband of second accused. The first accused is the elder brother of second accused.
5. It is not in dispute that second accused and her husband have fallen apart. The second accused is living separately from her husband. The complainant and her younger brother (husband of second accused) were living 4 together. On the date of incident, second accused had gone to meet her husband and to question him for having neglected and refused to maintain the second accused. The quarrel had ensued between the second accused and her husband wherein the complainant was an intervener. It appears the quarrel was pacified by her. After a period of 11 days from the date of incident, complainant had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 379, 426, 447, 448 and 506 (2) IPC against accused no.1 and 2. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., to the jurisdictional police. After enquiry, the police filed the final report against the accused for the aforestated offences.
6. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused of offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 354 and 506 r/w 34 IPC for the following reasons:
5
There was inordinate delay of 7 days in filing the complaint; the husband of second accused was not examined before the court; the evidence of PW's.4 and 5 does not inspire confidence.
Thereafter, the complainant was before the I-appellate court under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The learned judge of I-appellate court on reappreciation of evidence has confirmed the judgment of the trial court.
After going through the impugned judgment, I find that courts below have not committed any glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.
7. It is interesting to notice that marriage between second accused and her husband has not been dissolved by a decree of divorce. The second accused had gone to the house of her husband for which act, an offence under Section 448 is attributed to the second accused. It is difficult to conceive that entry of wife to the house of accused would constitute an offence of criminal trespass. The 6 complainant had also alleged the offences of criminal intimidation and threat to life and has not adduced credible evidence to prove the alleged offences. The complainant has alleged an offence under Section 323 IPC against the first accused and Section 354 IPC against the second accused. None of the witnesses has deposed that the modesty of complainant was outraged by the first accused. The dispute between husband and wife has been given a cloak of criminal case by the sister of husband probably at the instance of her brother.
8. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-