Karnataka High Court
C Channappa vs H S Rajegowda on 29 November, 2022
Author: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.196 OF 2012
C/W.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.358 OF 2012
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.196 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
C. Channappa,
Circle Inspector of Police,
Presently working at C.I.D.
Bangalore.
..Petitioner
(By Sri.P.N. Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
H.S. Rajegowda,
S/o. Rajegowda,
R/o. Hasaharaganahalli village,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District.
Since dead by LR.
1(a) H.R. Rajeeva,
S/o. H.S. Raje Gowda,
Age: Major,
No.51, 2nd Cross, 2nd Floor,
Lokanayaka Nagar, Hebbal 1st Stage,
Mysore -16.
.. Respondent
[By Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, Advocate for R-1(a)]
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W.
Crl.R.P.No.358/2012
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call
for the records; to set aside the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C.
Srirangapatna in C.C.No.849/2003 dated 25-09-2008 and
confirmed in Criminal appeal No.103/2008 dated 13-01-2012 on
the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,
Srirangapatna; acquit the petitioner/accused No.1 in the interest
of justice and equity.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.358 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. P. Raja Singh,
S/o. late
Aged about 53 years,
P.C.No.29, KSRP No.60,
Richmond Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
2. Nagannachari,
S/o. late Narasimhachary,
Aged about 53 years,
P.C.No.605,
KSRP No.60,
Richmond Road,
Bangalore - 560025.
..Petitioners
(By Sri.P.N. Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
H.S. Rajegowda,
S/o. Rajegowda,
R/o. Hasaharaganahalli village,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District.
Since dead by LR.
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W.
Crl.R.P.No.358/2012
3
1(a) H.R. Rajeeva,
S/o. H.S. Raje Gowda,
Age: Major,
No.51, 2nd Cross, 2nd Floor,
Lokanayaka Nagar,
Hebbal 1st Stage,
Mysore -16.
.. Respondent
[By Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, Advocate for R-1(a)]
****
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397(1)
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set
aside the judgment and order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the
Court of Fast Track Judge, Srirangapatna in Criminal Appeal
No.103/2008 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division) JMFC at Srirangapatna in C.C.No.849/2003
dated 25.9.2008 convicting the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326
read with Section 34 of IPC and allow this criminal revision
petition by acquitting the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 in
respect of above said offences in the interest of justice and
equity.
These Criminal Revision Petitions having been heard
through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing and
reserved on 22-11-2022, coming on for pronouncement of
Orders this day, the Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.196/2012 was the accused No.1 and petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 4 Criminal Revision Petition No.358/2012 were accused No.2 and accused No.3 respectively in C.C.No.849/2003, in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Srirangapatna, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court"), who, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25-09-2008 of the Trial Court, were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the IPC") and were sentenced accordingly.
Aggrieved by the same, all the accused persons preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.103/2008, in the Court of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Judge at Srirangapatna, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "the Sessions Judge's Court"), which, after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is challenging the judgments passed by the Trial Court Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 5 as well the Sessions Judge's Court, the petitioner (accused No.1) in Criminal Revision petition No.196/2012 and the petitioners (accused No.2 and accused No.3) in Criminal Revision Petition No.358/2012 have preferred the present revision petitions.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court was that, on the date 05-03-1992, at about 9:45 p.m., when the complainant - Sri.H.S. Raje Gowda, while waiting along with his Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-11/E-1792, near the Northern side gate of the KRS Dam for some other person to accompany him to go to his village Hosaharaganahalli village, Pandavapura Taluk, noticed the accused No.2 and accused No. 3 - the Police personnel, who were on duty to guard the said gate of the Dam, had restrained a Bullock Cart carrying pumpkin vegetable load in it. Since those two Police officials were not allowing the said Bullock Cart to pass through the gate, the complainant approached them and questioned accused Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 6 No.2 and accused No.3 as to why they were not allowing the Cart to move on the road and demanding money from them, the accused No.2 enraged by the questioning of the complainant, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him and put him in their Van and took him to the K.R. Sagar Police Station. In the said Police Station, the accused No.1, joined by accused No.2 and accused No.3 removed the cloths of the complainant and all the accused kicked the complainant with their boot legs and with laathi on different parts of his body, due to which, the complainant sustained severe injuries including injury to his right shoulder. Consequently, the right shoulder bone of the complainant got dislocated. Further the accused put life threat to the complainant and threatened him not to disclose about the said incident to anyone.
Apart from the same, the Police also foisted a false case against him and produced him before the Magistrate, on the next day. The complainant was taken to the Government Hospital, Srirangapattana, where he was given Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 7 initial treatment and was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. The Doctor in the said Hospital noticed a fracture on his right shoulder. The complainant says that his complaints to the Home Minister, Inspector General of Police, Superintendent of Police since did not invoke any response, he approached the Trial Court and lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") in P.C.R.No.1/1992, against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 392 of the IPC.
3. On the basis of the sworn statement given by the complainant and his witness in P.C.R.No.1/1992, the Trial Court proceeded in accordance with law and the trial was held in the matter.
4. After the trial, the Trial Court, by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, convicted all Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 8 the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
5. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused persons in the Trial Court, the prosecution got examined in all seven witnesses from PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-8. On behalf of the accused persons, no witness was examined, but a complaint was got marked as Ex.D-1.
6. The respondent is being represented by the learned counsel.
7. The Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
8. During the pendency of these revision petitions, after reporting the death of the sole and same respondent in both the petitions, his legal representative came on record as R-1(a).
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 9 The petitioner No.1 in Criminal Revision Petition No.358/2012 (accused No.2) - Sri. P. Raja Singh was also reported to be dead and a memo to that effect came to be filed in the matter on the date 06-12-2019. However, no further steps were taken from the petitioner's side in the matter for the reasons best known to them, as such, the petition of petitioner No.1 (accused No.2) - Sri.P. Raja Singh stands abated.
9. Learned counsel for the accused (revision petitioners) and learned counsel for the respondent No.1(a) are physically present in the Court.
10. Heard the learned counsels from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts and also the Trial Court and learned Sessions Judge's Court's records.
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 10
11. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
12. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in these revision petitions is:
Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge's Court, holding the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?
13. The learned counsel for the accused persons (revision petitioners) in his argument submitted that there are improvements in the evidence of PW-1 compared to his complaint. There is variation between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5, with respect to drawing of money and possession of the money with the complainant (PW-1). The same creates doubt in the case of the complainant. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 11 Learned counsel further submitted that PW-1 in his cross-examination since has stated that from inside the Police Station, he could not find any of the known persons outside the Police Station, his other part of the evidence that Nagegowda (PW-2) and Chandrappa (PW-4) and others were present, is not believable.
Learned counsel also submitted that since the complainant's case is with respect to two incidents, the evidence led by the complainant is insufficient to prove either of them.
The learned counsel also contended that though the complainant has stated that, he had complained to the Home Minister, Director General and Inspector General of Police, but no documents are produced in corroboration of the said statements, as such, the enormous delay in filing the private complainant has remained un-explained.
With respect to the alleged role of the accused No.1, the learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) submitted Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 12 that, there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, with respect to the alleged overt act of the accused No.1. PW-2 and PW-4 were created for the purpose of the case.
Learned counsel also submitted that the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is also irregular.
With this, he prayed to allow the present revision petitions filed by the accused persons.
14. Learned counsel for the complainant (respondent) though conceded that there is delay in filing the private complaint, however, submitted that the complainant has explained the cause for the delay. He also submitted that no irregularity is there in the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
Finally, stating that the evidence of the injured witness cannot be suspected and the said witness being trust worthy, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 13 judgments passed by the Courts below do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
15. The complainant in the private complaint - Sri. H.S. Rajegowda (Rajanna) was examined as PW-1. The said witness in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in his complaint. He has stated that, on the date of the incident, i.e. on 05-03-1992, after purchasing some articles for his Fair Price Shop, in order to go to his village Hosaharaganahalli, he came from Mysore side near the northern bank of the KRS Dam and stopped his Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-11/E-1792, to go to urinals. Thereafter, he was waiting for some time there to see for any person of his village to accompany him. It was at about 9:45 p.m to 10:00 p.m., at that time, a Bullock Cart loaded with vegetables (pumpkin) came from his village side. It was required to cross the bridge (of the KRS Dam). Accused No.2 - P. Raja Singh and accused No.3 - Nagannachari, who Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 14 were the Police Officials on duty near the said gate demanded for some money to allow the said Bullock Cart to cross the Dam. He (complainant) objected to the same and questioned as to why they (Police) are allowing only those who pay them the money. At that, the accused No.2
- P. Raja Singh scolded him in filthy language. When he (complainant) requested him to talk with some respect, the said accused No.2 - Raja Singh, questioning him as to why should he give respect to him, assaulted him (complainant) on his right neck and shoulder. Though the other Police who were there attempted to stop the said accused No.2 - Raja Singh from assaulting, but the said Raja Singh and the other Police present there put him (this witness) in a Police Van and brought him to the KRS Police Station. One Nanjaiah and Javaregowda and other persons were there in the spot when the incident took place.
The witness has further stated that after he was taken to the Police Station, accused No.1 - Inspector Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 15 C. Channappa also came there. All the three accused discussed in a room and without questioning him (complainant), got his cloths removed. Accused No.1 assaulted him, by kicking with his bootleg on different parts of his body. He also assaulted him with the laathi on different parts of his body including his right shoulder. They also forcibly took away cash of `5,000/- which he was possessing with him and threatened him of dire consequences in case if he (complainant) reveals about the incident to anyone. The witness has stated that he lost his conscious which he regained on the next day morning.
The witness also stated that when he was brought to the Police Station and was beaten in the Station, one Sri.Chandrappa of Raagimuddanahalli, Najegowda and K.C. Basavaraju were also there outside the Station. The witness stated that, on the next day, by foisting a false case against him, he was produced before the Magistrate, before whom, he revealed about he being assaulted by the Police. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 16 It was the Magistrate who directed the Police to take him to the Hospital for treatment. Thus, he was taken to the Hospital where the dislocation of his bone near right shoulder was detected and was treated as an in-patient for about 21 days. The witness stated that the Police have not returned the money robbed from him.
The witness also stated that, in this connection, he has complained to the Inspector General of Police, Home Minister and Superintendent of Police of Mandya District, however, none of them have taken any action. It is thereafter he filed the present case.
The witness has identified the certified copy of the order sheet of the alleged false case said to have been foisted against him at Ex.P-1, the x-ray film at Ex.P-2, and the Wound Certificate at Ex.P-3.
The witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination on different dates. It was suggested to the witness that there was prohibitory orders, prohibiting Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 17 any movement on the KRS Dam at the relevant point of time, however, the witness has stated that the Police were allowing them to go. The witness has given more details about the alleged assault upon him by the Police. Though the witness admitted that the Police have filed a case against him in the Sessions Case No.73/1993, alleging that he was obstructing the public servants in discharging their duty, the witness (complainant) called it as a false case. He denied a suggestion that by falling from the Scooter, he sustained injuries, but attributed the same against the Police.
16. PW-2 - Najegowda has stated that, after knowing from Javarappa, Basavaraju and others that the Police had taken the complainant to their Police Station, he joined them to go to the Police Station. The Police did not allow them to enter inside the Station. These people saw that the Police officials, i.e. Raja Singh (accused No.2) and Nagannachari (accused No.3) were assaulting the Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 18 complainant on his arms and other parts of the body. At that time, the accused No.1 - Channappa also went there and joined them. He took out a laathi (a strong stick) and removed the cloths of the complainant and started assaulting him on all the parts of his body. After assaulting him, they pushed him into the Police Lockup. Though these people requested the Police to release the said Rajegowda, but they refused to do it and told that he would be produced before the Court on the next day.
The witness has stated that on the next day, the said Rajegowda was produced before the Magistrate and from there, he was sent to the Hospital. The said Rajegowda was in-patient in the Hospital at Mysore for about 20 days.
In his (PW-2's) cross-examination from the accused's side, this witness reiterated that he was an eye witness to the incident. Several attempts were made to show that he could not be an eye witness to the incident, however, the witness adhered to his original version. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 19
17. PW-3 - Nanjaiah has stated that on the date of the incident, he was carrying vegetables in a Bullock Cart from his village Bindahalli to Mysore. When he came near the northern gate of the KRS Dam, the accused No.2 (Raja Singh) and accused No.3 (Nagannachari) stopped his Cart and demanded money of not less than `25/-. He (witness) refused to pay the said money. At that time, from Mysore side, Sri. Rajegowda (complainant), a resident of his neighbouring village came there and after knowing from him (PW-3) that the accused were demanding money, he (complainant) questioned accused No.2 - Raja Singh and accused No.3 - Nagannachari, as to why they were demanding money instead of leaving Nanjaiah to go further. The witness says, at that point, both accused No.2 and accused No.3 talked singularly with the complainant and assaulted him with club and took him to the Police Station. One Sri. Javaregowda was also a witness to the incident. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 20 In his cross-examination from the accused's side, attempts were made to show that, at the relevant point of time, no public were allowed to go on the Dam. However, the witness did not admit the said suggestion. Further, though he admitted that, there was an alternate way to go to Mysore from his village, but stated that they were not using the said alternate route.
18. PW-4 - Chandrappa, in his evidence has stated that, on the night of the incident, while he was sitting in the Circle in the front of the K.R.S Police Station, he saw a Police vehicle coming to the Police Station from the K.R.S. South bank side. He heard somebody screaming inside the vehicle. Out of curiosity, he went to see as to what it was and noticed that the accused persons - Raja Singh and Nagannachari were taking the complainant Rajegowda to the Police Station. The accused No.1 to accused No.3 joined together and confined Rajegowda inside the Police Station and assaulted him. Accused No.1 assaulted Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 21 Rajegowda by kicking with his bootleg. Rajegowda was screaming that his bone was broken. The cloths worn by the complainant were also got removed and Police took out `5,000/- cash which the complainant had with him and pushed him into the Police lock-up. The witness specifically stated that all these things were seen by him by standing at the door of the Police Station. Along with him, Javaregowda, Nanjaiah (PW-2) and several others were there. The Police did not allow them to go inside the Police Station. His request with the Police to release Rajegowda (complainant), for which he (this witness) is ready to stand as a surety for Rajegowda was also not accepted by them.
In his cross-examination, the witness adhered to his original version.
19. PW-5 - Kumar has stated that on the date of the incident, in the morning at about 11:00 a.m., he had given `10,000/- to the complainant after encashing the cheque in the Bank.
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 22
20. PW-6 - Dr. R.C. Pramila has spoken about she examining the injured Rajegowda who had been to their Hospital with the history of assault by the Police Officer Channappa on the previous night. She has given the description of the injuries found on the injured. She also stated that she referred the injured to the Orthopedic Surgeon and received the report from them stating that, the fracture injury to the right shoulder found on the injured was grievous in nature.
The witness has identified the Wound Certificate issued by her at Ex.P-3.
21. PW-7 -Dr. L. Yoganarasimhachar - the Orthopedic Surgeon and Head of the Orthopedic Department of K.R. Hospital, Mysore, has stated that, the complainant was admitted as in-patient in their Hospital on the date 06-03-1992. He examined him and noticed dislocation of Acromia clavicle of right shoulder.
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 23 He stated that the patient (complainant) was subjected to a surgical operation and a wire was implanted in the said portion. The patient (complainant) was discharged from the Hospital on the date 27-03-1992. The witness also stated that if any one is assaulted forcibly on the right shoulder, the injury found on the complainant are possible to be caused. He stated that if any one is assaulted with bootlegs, the said injury is not possible to occur. However, if a person is made to fall on the ground and thereafter assaulted by kicking with his bootleg, then the said injury is possible to be caused. The witness also stated that even after recovery, the patient would be remained with 5% disability.
22. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 that, accused No.2 - Raja Singh and accused No.3 - Nagannachari were on duty as the Police officials near the KRS Dam on the night of the alleged incident, i.e. on the date 05-03-1992, has not been denied from the accused's side. The presence Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 24 of PW-1 near the said KRS Dam on that night and Nanjaiah going to the said place, along with his Bullock Cart loaded with vegetables is corroborated by the evidence of said Nanjaiah (PW-3).
Though a suggestion was made to show that, due to the prohibitory orders said to be in force for general public going on the Dam at the relevant point of time, PW-3 could not have come there, was made in the cross-examination of PW-3, but it was not specifically denied that PW-3 had not been to the KRS Dam along with his Bullock Cart loaded with vegetables on the night of the incident. Therefore, the presence of PW-3 and PW-1 on the spot of the first incident near the KRS Dam, stands established.
23. PW-1 in his private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that, he objected to the Police i.e. accused No.2 and accused No.3, who were on duty near the KRS Dam for not allowing PW-3 - Nanjaiah to cross the Dam. However, in his evidence, PW-1 (complainant) has Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 25 stated that the Police were demanding money from Nanjaiah to cross the Dam, which Nanjaiah was refusing to give, as such, he objected for the said act of the Police officials.
24. Learned counsel for the accused persons (petitioners) termed the above statement of PW-1 (complainant) that, the Police (i.e. accused No.2 and accused No.3) were demanding money from Nanjaiah (PW-3) is contradictory to his complaint. However the very learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the alleged contradiction was not brought on record from the accused's side in a manner known to law. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-3 itself would go to show that, he was pestered by accused No.2 and accused No.3 (Police personnel) who were demanding money from him, which he refused to give to them. It was at that time, PW-1 Rajegowda interfered and questioned the Police. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 26 The said evidence of PW-3 which could not be demolished in his cross-examination would go to show that, the alleged first incident of alleged assault on the complainant began near KRS Dam.
25. The evidence of PW-1 that, at this questioning the Police (accused No.2 and accused No.3), the Police abused him in filthy language and scolded him in singular language and that when he asked them as to why they are scolding him in singular language, it enraged the Police to assault him, gives a detailed picture of how the incident developed.
26. The evidence of PW-1 (complainant) that the other Police who were present there stopped the accused No.2 and accused No.3 from assaulting him, however, the accused No.2, accused No.3 and other Police present there put him in a Police Van and took him to their Police Station also shows how the incident further continued. The Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 27 evidence of PW-3 also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 on these points.
27. These details given by PW-1 and PW-3 gives a clear account of how the incident initiated and continued. As a natural witness PW-3 has spoken about the incident and PW-1 also being an affected person in the incident, has given the details of the incident which attracts no suspicion to suspect their version. Thus, the first phase of the incident that has taken place near the KRS Dam is established by the trustworthy evidence of PW-1 and PW-3.
28. The second phase of the alleged incident is the incident said to have taken place in the K.R.Sagar Police Station.
PW-1 Rajegowda has given a detailed account of the continuation of his assault by accused No.2 and accused No.3 in the Police Station, however, joined by accused No.1
- the Police Officer in the Station. His (complainant's) Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 28 statement that, in the Police Station, he was undressed and assaulted by all the three accused persons, among whom major assault was made by accused No.1 - Channappa - the Police Officer, who assaulted him by kicking with his bootleg and laathi on different parts of the body including on his shoulder, is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4.
29. The learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) in his argument submitted that, when PW-1 - Rajegowda was said to have been taken to the Police Station and even according to PW-2 and PW-4, when they were not allowed to enter inside the Police Station, it is not believable that, PW-2 and PW-4 could be eye witnesses to the alleged incident at the Police Station.
The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable for the reason that, even though PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that they were not allowed to go inside the Police Station, but PW-4 has Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 29 specifically stated in his evidence that they were standing at the door of the Police Station and seeing the incident.
Attempts were made in the cross-examination of both these witnesses to show that, these two witnesses could not have seen the incident from outside the Station, however, these witnesses made it clear that, they could see the Police assaulting PW-1 Rajegowda. In fact, PW-2 has specifically stated that, the accused No.1 was assaulting PW-1 Rajegowda in the Central Hall of the Police Station. It has not been elicited from the evidence of either of these witnesses that PW-1 Rajegowda was taken inside a closed room or that the room where Rajegowda was being assaulted was not visible from outside. Therefore, a reading of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 in their entirety would go to show that, though PW-1 was said to have been assaulted in the Police Station, it was not inside any Room that was not visible from outside the Station or that behind the closed doors. On the other hand, the witness (PW-2), by Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 30 stating that after assaulting PW-1, he was pushed inside the Police Lock up, would make it further clear that, PW-1 was assaulted by the Police in such a manner and in such a place which was visible to any one standing near the door of the Police Station. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 that, they saw the Police assaulting PW-1 Rajegowda with their hands and kicking him with their bootleg and laathi, is believable.
30. The evidence of PW-2 that he was there near the Police Station till 11:00 p.m. on the date of the incident and was requesting the Police to release Rajegowda, for which they refused, shows that, being a person known to Rajegowda, he was at the Police Station pleading the Police to release him (complainant - Rajegowda).
31. Similarly, the evidence of PW-4 that he could not get Bus to go to his village on the said night and that he stayed at KRS on the said night and once again went to Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 31 the Police Station on the next day morning, offering his suretyship for the release of Rajegowda by the Police, however, the Police refused to release him would also go to show that, even PW-4 also being a known person to Rajegowda was in the Police Station, both on the night of the date of incident and also visited the Police Station on the next day morning. Thus the presence of PW-2 and PW-4 and their evidence which has come in a natural manner gives no scope to suspect the same.
32. Learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) in his argument submitted that, PW-1 Rajegowda himself in his evidence has stated that, from inside the Police Station, though he could see the outside view, but he did not see anybody known to him in the mob gathered outside, would go to show that, PW-2 and PW-4 would not have been present near the Police Station.
However, the above argument of the learned counsel is not acceptable for the reason that, merely because PW-1 Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 32 Rajegowda, who was confined by the Police inside the Police Station and was being beaten by the Police has stated that, he did not see anyone known to him outside, it would not mean that, he has noticed each and every person in the gathering and after such verification, he has stated so. On the other hand, in such a scenario, rather than the person who is being beaten inside a Police Station noticing the details of the persons in the gathering outside the Station, it is the members in the gathering who would be outside the Police Station could say as to who all had assembled there. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 further corroborates the evidence of PW-1 about the second phase of the incident, where PW-1 Rajegowda was assaulted inside the Police Station.
33. The learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) in his argument also submitted that, there is no specific averment against anyone of the accused as to at whose assault, PW-1 sustained dislocation of shoulder bone or the Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 33 fracture, as such, the offence of causing grievous injury cannot be attributed to any of the accused.
34. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 about the accused No.2 and accused No.3 assaulting PW-1 Rajegowda near the KRS Dam, though would say that the accused assaulted near the right neck and shoulder of PW1, but it would not say that due to the said assault, PW-1 sustained any grievous injury. Even PW-1 also has not stated that he sustained any serious injury in the incident near the KRS Dam, whereas the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 makes it very clear that, the major assault inflicted upon PW-1 was at the Police Station. It is there that all the accused joined together and assaulted PW-1 with their hands and also by kicking with their bootlegs.
35. PW-4 has also stated that when he was seeing the assault on PW-1 Rajegowda in the Police Station by accused No.1 by kicking with his bootleg, Rajegowda was Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 34 shouting stating that his bone is broken. Thus, it makes it very clear that, the alleged inflicting of the grievous injury upon Rajegowda was in the Police Station and by the joint act of accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.3, as such, the said act cannot be confined to any one of those three accused persons.
36. The learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) also has raised a doubt about the complainant possessing a sum of `5,000/- with him, which, according to the witness (complainant), was taken away by the Police.
The evidence of the complainant (PW-1) that, he was an agriculturist and also running a Fair Price Shop and used to go to Mysore to purchase goods for his Fair Price Shop has not been denied or disputed from the accused's side. According to the witness, on the date of the incident also, he had been to Mysore and returning to his village, after his work.
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 35 PW-5 has stated that on the same day morning, withdrawing a sum of `10,000/- from the Bank, he had given the same to PW-1 Rajegowda, who was known to him. Therefore, it is quite possible that, PW-1, after spending some amount for his purchases, if any, at Mysore, was returning to his Village with the remaining cash. It is the said amount PW-1 has accused the accused persons of robbing from him. The said act of the accused persons of taking away his (complainant's) money has also been corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, who has stated in his evidence that, while the complainant was being assaulted by the accused, he was telling about the presence of money in his cloths. According to these witnesses, the cloths worn by Rajegowda was got removed by the Police. Therefore, it was quite natural for PW-1 Rajegowda to show his concern about his money which was there in his removed cloths in the Police Station. Even PW-4 also has stated that after removing the cloths of Rajegowda, the Police took away the amount that was with Rajegowda. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 36 Since the said witness was seeing all these incidents by standing at the door of the Police Station and since according to PW-2, Rajegowda was being assaulted in the central hall of the Police Station, there is all the possibility for both the witnesses to see the alleged assault upon the complainant Rajegowda in the Police Station by the accused as well the Police robbing his money. As such, the said point of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) is also not acceptable.
37. Learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) also contended that there is enormous delay of about three and a half months in filing the complaint, which also creates a doubt in the case of the complainant.
No doubt there is a delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant. However, the complainant has stated in his very complaint as well in his evidence that he had complained to the concerned Minister and also to the higher officers of the Police Department, Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 37 however, since no action was taken by them in the matter, he filed a private complaint in the Court.
No doubt to corroborate the same, the complainant has not produced any document. In the circumstance of the case, when an agriculturist from a village accuses of some atrocity against him by the Police themselves, then, it is not generally expected from that victim to maintain the records for having complained to the higher Police Officers and their alleged inaction in the matter. It cannot be ignored of the fact that the victim (complainant) was a farmer from a village and the complaint was made against the Police officials to the higher authorities in the Police Department. In such a situation, it cannot always be expected that the complaint of the complainant would be placed before the higher Police Officers by the concerned staff and that the higher Police Officers would necessarily bestow their attention to the contents of the complaint and take immediate action. Thus in the present facts and Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 38 circumstances of the case, the mere non-production of any documentary evidence to support the contention and the delay in filing the FIR themselves would not take away the case of the complainant. On the other hand, the evidence led from the complainant's side would go to show that, he had every reason to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. with some delay.
38. Further, the above evidence would also go to show that, the 'B' report filed by the Police in the matter was not a true report, since all the accused persons involved in the matter were the Police officials. On the other hand, the evidence from the complainant's side could able to establish the alleged act committed by the accused against the complainant.
39. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) also contended that, the recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 39 was in a mechanical manner with irregularities. He contended that, questions put to some of the accused were not relevant to those accused.
A perusal of the statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter would go to show that, the Trial Court has not recorded common statement in a single document for all the accused. It has recorded the statements of the accused persons separately by posing them the questions separately and recording their answers separately for each of the accused. Though several of the questions put were common in nature, but they pertain to the commission of the common act by the accused which were done jointly by them. Only few questions to accused No.1 appear to be not relevant, however, either those questions or answers given to those questions would in no manner cause prejudice to the said accused. There is no omission to any of the accused from bringing to their notice in the form of questions of any Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 40 incriminating statements made against them by the witnesses. The accused even after answering to the questions put to them under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., except answering them, have not led their evidence and not got the documents marked as exhibits in a manner known to law nor even confronted the documents to the complainant's witnesses.
Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused (petitioners) on the said point is also not acceptable.
40. From the above analysis of evidence, it is clear that, the complainant could able to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, particularly, accused No.1 - C. Channappa and accused No.3 - Nagannachari, who are the surviving accused, for all the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC. Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 41 Since both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence placed before them have found the accused guilty of the alleged offences, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court which was further confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court.
41. The Trial Court has sentenced each of the accused No.1 and accused No.3 to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with 34 of the IPC, in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. For the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the IPC, each of the accused No.1 and accused No.3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC, the accused No.1 and accused No.3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `3,000/- each and in default of Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 42 payment of fine, the said accused were directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months by each of the accused No.1 and accused No.3. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Further, out of the total fine amount of `10,500/-, a sum of `9,000/- was ordered to be paid to the victim Rajegowda - PW-1 (complainant) as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
42. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. It shall be neither exorbitant nor for the name-sake.
43. Admittedly, the accused No.1 and accused No.3 are Police Officer/officials. The alleged act committed is against a civilian, who questioned the unlawful act of the accused persons. The return what the complainant got for the same was the assault by the Police by inflicting simple and grievous injuries including kicks with their bootlegs, Crl.R.P.No.196/2012 C/W. Crl.R.P.No.358/2012 43 robbery of his money which was in his possession and also beating with a laathi, which laathi is a weapon, when used is also likely to cause grievous injures, may be, some time death also. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The sentence ordered also being proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt against accused No.1 and accused No.3, I do not find any reason even to interfere in the order on sentence also passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER [i] The Criminal Revision Petition No.196/2012 and Criminal Revision Petition No.358/2012 stand dismissed as devoid of merit.
[ii] The accused No.1 - Sri.C. Channappa
(petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition
No.196/2012) and the accused No.3 -
Crl.R.P.No.196/2012
C/W.
Crl.R.P.No.358/2012
44
Sri. Nagannachari (petitioner No.2 in Criminal Revision Petition No.358/2012) are directed to surrender before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Srirangapatna, within thirty (30) days from today and to serve the sentence ordered by the Trial Court.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also the Sessions Judge's Court along with their respective records immediately, for doing needful in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*