Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and has prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.

8. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the trial, the complainant - Nataraj had died. The prosecution in order to establish its case against the petitioners, therefore, had solely relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 & 6 who are said to have over-heard the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant - Nataraj. PWs-1 & 6 have stated that the complainant had put his phone on loud speaker, and therefore, they could over-hear the conversation between the petitioners and the complainant.

9. In normal course, if a person is speaking to the other over mobile phone, it would not be possible for others to over- hear the conversation unless his phone is put on loud speaker. From the perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the complainant has not stated that he had put his phone on loud speaker when the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened him on the date of incident. In fact, the name of PWs-1 & 6 appears to have been subsequently inserted in the complaint which gives rise to a doubt as to the very presence of the said witnesses at the spot when the petitioners allegedly are said to have abused and threatened the complainant over phone. Except the evidence of PWs-1 & 6, there is no other material to prove that the petitioners have abused and threatened the complainant over phone. The conversation between the petitioners and the complainant has not been recorded. Therefore, when the very presence of these witnesses i.e., PWs-1 & 6, becomes doubtful, having regard to the insertion made in the complaint and also having regard to the fact that the complainant had not mentioned in the complaint that he had put is mobile phone on loud speaker at the time of alleged conversation between himself and the accused persons, the courts below could not have recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioners for the offence under Section 506 IPC solely based on the deposition of PWs-1 & 6.