Karnataka High Court
Devaraja vs The State Of Karnataka By on 20 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:3433
CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 811 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 856 OF 2017
IN CRL.RP NO.811/2017
BETWEEN:
DEVARAJA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O ALAGAVADI VILLAGE,
BHARMASAGARA HOBLI,
CHITRADURGA TALUKA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577519
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.B.UMESH, ADV. FOR
Digitally signed by SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
SANDHYA S
Location: High AND:
Court of Karnataka
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BHARAMASAGARA POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA TALUKA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577519
(REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560001)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:3433
CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN
C.C.NO.2092/2009, CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 13.07.2017 PASSED BY THE SPL. II ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JDUGE, CHITRADURGA IN
CRL.A.NO.37/2015 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,
324, 353 AND 504 OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED
AGAINST HIM.
IN CRL.RP NO.856/2017
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJA
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O ALAGAVADI VILLAGE,
BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI,
CHITRADURGA TALUKA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 519
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.B.UMESH, ADV.
SRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BHARAMASAGARA POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA TALUKA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 519
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP.)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:3433
CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 15.7.2015 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN
C.C.NO.2092/2009 CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 13.7.2017 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL, 2ND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA
IN CRL.A.NO.35/2015 (CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
323, 324, 353, 504 OF IPC) AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED
AGAINST HIM.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Revision petitioner/accused Nos.3 and 7 have preferred these Revision Petitions against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.2092/2009 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7, which is confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2015 connected with Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2015.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these Revision Petitions are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 08th August, 2009 at 7.30 pm, Forest Officials CWs1, 4 to 7 were on patrolling duty near Neerthadi Forest area, the accused 1 and 2 were proceeding in a tractor-trailer carrying forest produce. PW1 and his staff apprehended the accused 1 and 2 and took them to their custody along with the tractor and while they were proceeding along with accused to Davanagere, near Nirantara Education Centre, accused No.1 made a phone call to Halagwadi villagers, and then accused No.3 to 21 came holding clubs and accused CWs1, 4 to 7 abused the officials in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. Accused No.2 assaulted CW5 with club; accused 1, 3 to 5, 9, 16 and 17 assaulted CW4 with hands; accused 17 to 21, assaulted CW7 with hands and legs, who intervened to pacify the galata and torn his -5- NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 shirt. As a result, CWs 4 to 7 sustained simple injuries. It is also alleged that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and abused in CWw1, 4 to 7 in filthy language. Thus, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 320, 143, 147, 148, 504, 333, 324 and 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and case was registered in CC No.2092 of 2009. Summons were issued and in response to summons, accused appeared before the Court and were enlarged on bail. Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, ten witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 10 and fifteen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P15 and two material objects were marked as MOs 1 and 2. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused -6- NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 have denied the evidence of prosecution evidence, but they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
5. Having heard the arguments, the trial Court acquitted accused 4 to 6, and 8 to 21 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 332, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has convicted the accused 1 to 3 and 7 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 353 and 504 Indian Penal Code and accused 1 to 3 and 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days; further, the accused are sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of one year with payment of Rs.700/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code; and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 to 3 and 7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and -7- NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, accused 1, 2, and 7 have preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2015 and accused No.3 in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2015 before the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The appeal came to be dismissed on 13.07.2017. Being aggrieved by the judgments of both courts, accused Nos.3 has preferred Revision Petition No.811 of 2017 and accused No.7 has preferred Revision Petition No.856 of 2017.
6. Sri Vijay Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in both petitions submits that the judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court are illegal, invalid and contrary to law and evidence on record and are capricious and opposed to sound principles -8- NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 of law. Both courts have committed serious error in convicting the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of petitioners. Both the courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The courts have committed serious error in relying the evidence of PWs1, 4 to 7 and 9 who are the interested official witnesses and whose evidence suffers from legal infirmities. The Courts below have committed serious error holding that there was motive on the part of the petitioners to commit the alleged offence. There is no cogent, consistent, corroborative, believable and trustworthy evidence before the Court. Further, it is pointed out that the alleged incident took place on 08th August, 2009 and the complaint came to be filed on 09th August, 2009 and the First Information Report reached to the Court on 10th August, 2009. The delay in filing the complaint and submitting the First Information Report to the Court has not been explained by the prosecution. PWs67 and 7 have clearly deposed in their evidence that they do not know who have assaulted whom. The -9- NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 Investigating Officer has not produced any document to show to show that they are registered the case against the accused No.1 and 2 who were transporting the forest produce in the tractor-trailer. Investigating Officer has also not produced any document to show that the forest officials were on duty at the relevant point of time. Since the Investigating Officer has failed to produce relevant document to prove that the official witnesses were on duty at the relevant point of time, the question of committing crime under Section 353 does not arise. On all these grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing these Revision Petitions.
7. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the trial court have properly appreciated the material on record, in accordance with law and facts and the appellate court also confirmed the same. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the appellate court
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 and on all these grounds to sought to dismiss these revision petitions.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the Revision Petitioners have made out that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court are illegal, capricious, perverse and against the sound principles of law?
2. What order?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the affirmative;
Point No.2: as per final order Regarding point No.1:
10. I have carefully examined the material placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08th August, 2009 at 7.30 pm, Forest Officials CWs1, 4 to 7 were on patrolling duty near Neerthadi Forest area, the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 accused 1 and 2 were proceeding in a tractor trolley carrying forest produce. PW1 and his staff apprehended the accused 1 and 2 and took them to their custody along with the tractor and while they were proceeding along with accused to Davanagere, near Nirantara Education Centre, accused No.1 made a phone call to Halagwadi villagers, and then accused No.3 to 21 came holding clubs and accused CWs1, 4 to 7 abused the officials in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. Accused No.2 assaulted CW5 with club; accused 1, 3 to 5, 9, 16 and 17 assaulted CW4 with hands; accused 17 to 21, assaulted CW7 with hands and legs, who intervened to pacify the galata and torn his shirt. As a result, CWs 4 to 7 sustained simple injuries. It is also alleged that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and accused CWs.1, 4 to 7 abused in filthy language. Thus, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 320, 143, 147, 148, 504, 333, 324 and 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. To prove the guilt of the accused, ten witnesses were
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 examined as PWs1 to 10 and fifteen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P15 and two material objects were marked as MOs 1 and 2.
11. PW1-Gopya Nayaka, said to be complainant, has stated in the complaint that on 8th August, 2009 at 4.00 pm while he was on patrolling duty in their official vehicle along with other forest officials in Neerthadi Forest area, Madukanhalli village, Hebbal Branch, between 7.00 to 7.30 pm, near Security Guard Point constructed by Windvan Company, one Tractor came and when they stopped the tractor and enquired the driver of the Tractor Ajjaiah as to the loading of the forest produce in the Tractor, then Ajjaiah informed that he is carrying the goods belonging to Windvan Company. But, he suspected the driver of the tractor and informing the staff to keep a watch on him, he returned to headquarter. After sometime, he received the phone call from staff as to the transport of forest produce (kadujaatikattige) in the tractor and the driver of the tractor has not agreed to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 drive the tractor to the headquarter. Then he sent the additional staff CWs5 and 7 to the spot in mini lorry. The driver of the tractor had objected to drive the tractor. At about 8.00 pm, he has received the phone message from his staff as to the assault, viz. 20-30 persons who have come from Halagawadi village, at the instance of Ajjaiah, have assaulted in the dark and fled the scene. Then, they took to custody of Ravi and Ajjaiah and shifted the tractor to the forest office, Davanagere and handed over to the same to him immediately, he shifted the injured Forest Guard-Radhakrishna, Mini Lorry driver-Madhusudana and the Forest Watchers-Gopala Nayaka and Rama Nayaka to the Hospital at Davanagere and on the same day, he has recorded the statement of accused 1 and 2. That on 09th August, 2009, he has lodged the complaint against the accused at 2.00 pm. He has also registered a case against the accused and retained the tractor in his custody. Thereafter, police have visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar. Forest officials have shown the kadujaatikattige and also the torn khakhi shirt. Police
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 have sealed the same under mahazar Exhibit P2. The accused have not obtained the licence to transfer kadujaatikattige. PW2-Ravikumar, said to be the attester to mahazar Exhibit P2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW3-Gowra Gopalappa, said to be the eye- witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4-Radhakrishna, Deputy Range Forest Officer, has deposed in his evidence that in 08th August, 2009, PWs 5 to 7 were on patrolling duty in reserve forest area and at 6.00 pm, the higher official CW1 came to the spot, one tractor was stationed. On enquiry with the driver of the tractor, he stated that he came to shift the material pertaining to Windvan company and they have observed for some time. While, they were standing on the same road, at about 7.00 pm, two persons came in a tractor, and upon enquiry, they picked up quarrel with them and then the driver of the tractor called villagers and after some time, 25-30 persons came from village and as at that time it was dark and many people have gathered, he could not identify them. He has identified Ajjaiah, who is
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 before the Court and the driver of the tractor and cannot identify the other accused. It is stated that the people who have gathered have abused them in filthy language, and assaulted CWs5 to 7 and caused simple injuries. He has also received injuries on his chest and then they took the tractor to their office. The accused have obstructed them to discharge their official duty and he has given statement before the Investigating Officer.
12. PW5-Madhusudana has deposed in his evidence that on 08th August, 2009 at 6.00 pm, CW1 came to the forest area for inspection. He came in the official vehicle along with CWs4 to 7 at 6.30 pm near security point and by that time, the offending Tractor was proceeding in the forest. On seeing them, CW1 informed to inspect the same. At about 7.00 pm, tractor returned. CW4 subjected the tractor to inspection. Ajjaiah was the driver of the tractor. The tractor was loaded with forest produce (Kadujaatikattige). On enquiry they have questioned as to why they have cut the forest produce (kaadujaatikattige)
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 in the forest. In response, accused Nos.1 and 2 have abused them in filthy language and took tractor to the custody. Accused Nos.1 and 2 called 24-25 persons from Kurukanahalli village and they picked up quarrel against them and assaulted them. Accused No.2 assaulted him with forest produce (kaadujaatikattige) to his hands and the hand was fractured and other accused caught hold and assaulted him. CW7 received injuries with stone on his hands and accused torn his cloth. Accused has also assaulted Kotyanayaka and then they apprehended the accused Ravi and Ajjaiah and he has identified them.
13. PW6-Kotyanayaka has deposed in his evidence that on 08th August, 2009 at 7.00 pm, CW1 came to the forest area for inspection and the offending Tractor was proceeding in the forest. On seeing the tractor, they informed the driver of the tractor to take the vehicle to their office and the tractor was loaded with forest produce (kaadujaatikattige). CW1 refused to take the vehicle to the said office. He was assaulted by one Shivaraju who
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 slapped him on his cheek and PW.5 has received injuries to his hands, but during his cross-examination, he admitted that since it is dark, he did not know who hit to whom with what.
14. PW7-Ramanayaka who is a watcher has deposed his evidence that he did not know to read and write. He received information from PW4 that galata is going on in Kurukanahalli village. Based on that information, he along with PWs5 and 6 have gone to the galata spot and there the villagers were assaulting PW6 with forest produce (kaadujaatikattige). When they intervened, they were also assaulted on back of their neck. Further, he identified one Ravi and other accused persons were not identified since it was dark. He also admitted the same version as admitted by PW.6 in his cross-examination.
15. PW8-Murugendrappa said to be the eyewitness has not supported the case of prosecution and even in the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 cross-examination he has categorically denied the statement recorded at the time of alleged incident.
16. PW9 - Rajashekar, Police Inspector has deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.
17. PW10-Chaitanya, Doctor has deposed as to the treatment given to PWs4 to 7 who came with history of assault by public on 08.08.2009 at 11.20 p.m. and also issued wound certificates of the said persons as per Exs.P11 to P14.
18. On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the investigating officer has not produced any documents to show that PWs1,4,5,6 and 7 were on duty and he has not explained anything as to the non-production of material piece of evidence and also not produced any document to show that they have deputed to duty in the forest area, but Ex.P3 - attendance certificate in which the Forest Range Officer has certified that on 08.08.2009 at 8.00 p.m., the officials of
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 Davangere forest range namely, Sri. V. Radhakrishna, Sri. G.R.Madhusudhana, Sri. Kotyanayaka and Sri. Ramanayaka have discharged their duties. But the investigating officer has not collected the attendance register extracts and movement register extracts maintained by the concerned department. In the absence of these material piece of evidence, it is not just and proper to say that the aforesaid officials were deputed to duty at relevant point of time. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 have committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code.
19. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 21. But the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal against the said accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that all the accused formed into unlawful assembly holding forest produce (kaadujaatikattige) in their hands and abused the forest officials in filthy language. Thus, the accused have
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 committed offence as alleged by the prosecution. When the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 320, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 332 and 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, the question of committing the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code by accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 does not arise. However, this Court has carefully examined the evidence of prosecution against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.
20. With regard to the offence under Section 323,324 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, Ex.P1 - complaint reveals that all the accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 21 are involved in the alleged incident and it is silent about the assault made by accused Nos.1, 3 and 7. Admittedly, PW.1 is not an eyewitness. PW4 and PW5 have clearly deposed in their evidence at the time of galata as there is dark and not specifically stated who has
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 assaulted to whom. PWs6 and 7 have also clearly admitted that they have not identified the accused as there is dark and other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The alleged incident took place on 08.8.2009 at about 7.30 p.m. and the complaint came to be filed on 09.08.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. and First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 10.10.2009 at 11.00 a.m. The prosecution has not explained anything as to the delay in filing the complaint and also submission of First Information Report to the Court.
21. In Ex.P1 - complaint, it is stated that PWs.1 and 4 to 7 are the staff and they have identified the said accused. But in this regard, absolutely there is no evidence at the instance of whom the accused Nos.1 to 21 have inserted as accused in the alleged complaint. It is the case of prosecution that when the forest officials have apprehended the accused No.1 along with tractor which was loaded with forest produce, this incident has taken
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 place. The investigating officer has not produced any document to show that the forest officials have not conducted mahazar and register the case against accused Ajjaiah and others for the commission of offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 for transporting the forest produce at relevant point of time. First of all, the forest authorities have registered the case against the driver of the offending tractor and others for the commission of alleged offence. But in this regard, no material was produced by the prosecution. When they have seized the offending tractor in accordance with relevant Act and Rules, the question of preventing the forest officials from discharging their duties does not arise.
22. With regard to the assault of the injured persons are concerned, the prosecution has produced Ex.P11 to 14 and the said wound certificates belongs to one V. Radhakrishna, G.R.Madhusudhana, Kotyanayaka and Ramanayaka. This contents of wound certificate and
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 also evidence of PW.10 - doctor does not reveals as to the names of the accused who have assaulted to the above injured persons. If really the injured persons who have examined before Court have identified the accused at relevant point of time, they would have revealed the names of accused, but they have done so. The wound certificate reveals that these injured persons came with a history of assault only and that there are no external injuries found on the body of the injured persons. If really the accused have assaulted to these injured persons with M.O.1 - forest produce (kaadujaatikattige), the said injured would have sustained with grievous injuries and also sustained fracture but no such injuries are found on injured persons.
23. Ex.P2 - spot panchanama reveals that the investigating officer has conducted mahazar between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 09.8.2009 and has recorded the statements of Gowdara Gopalappa, Murugendrappa, Radhakrishna, Madhusudhana, Kotyanayaka and
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 Ramanayaka as per Exs.P4, 5,7,8,9 and 10. First Information Report was submitted to the Court on 10.10.2009 at 11.00 a.m. If really the investigating officer has conducted mahazar and recorded the statement of these witnesses on 09.08.2009, he would have submitted the same along with First Information Report to the Court on the same day, but only at the time of filing the charge sheet, he has produced these materials to the Court. Therefore, a careful examination of the entire material evidence on record, there is no cogent, corroborative, clinching, believable and trustworthy evidence placed before this Court. The evidence of prosecution witnesses will create reasonable doubt as to the commission of alleged offence by accused Nos. 3 and
7. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Accordingly, the revision petitioners have made out that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court are illegal, capricious, perverse and against the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017 sound principles of law. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:
24. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. Both Revision petitions are allowed;
2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.2092/2009 by the Court of II Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga which is confirmed by the judgment dated 13.07.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.35/2015 connected with Crl.A.No.37/2015 are set aside;
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:3433 CRL.RP No. 811 of 2017 C/W CRL.RP No. 856 of 2017
3. The accused Nos.3 and 7 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 353 and 504 Indian Penal Code.
4. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to the accused in accordance with law;
5. Send the copy of this order along with trial Court record to the concerned court;
Sd/-
JUDGE LNN,SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59