Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 355 and 504 of IPC and a case was registered in CC.No.601/2021. Charge is framed by the learned Magistrate and the same is read over to the accused. The accused pleaded guilty and claims to be tried. To prove the case of the prosecution, 19 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 19. 22 documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to 22 and one material object got marked as M.O.1 On closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is put to question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the evidence appearing against him, accused has denied the evidence appearing against him, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. However, submitted his written statement, in which he has denied the alleged incident, and further submitted that he being social worker, has inquired as to the subsidy to be allotted to the farmers through phone to the complainant, and he is a responsible citizen in the office of CW.1, and the concerned officer has misappropriated the amount of four crores, which pertains to the sanction of subsidiary to the farmers. Since, he has questioned the same through phone, the complainant has filed false complaint against him only to harass him.

4. On hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 355, 353 and 504 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has preferred the criminal appeal before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballary in Crl.A.No.57/2013. Same was dismissed on 14/3/2014. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has filed this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that both Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. Evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 to 6, 15 and 17 does not corroborated with each other, and their version taken during the cross examination of both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective manner. On these grounds, he sought for allowing the revision petition.

7. As against this, learned Addl. SPP submits his arguments that both Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and hence, he sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

8. I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.

9. PW.1-P.S.Kulkarni said to be the complainant, examined as PW.1. He has deposed in his evidence as to the alleged incident as stated in Ex.P.1-complaint. He has also deposed as to the contents of panchanama-Ex.P.2 and 6 photos snapped at the time of conducting mahazar, which are marked as Exs.P.3 to 8. PW.2-Umapath and PW.3-Bommappa @ Bomanna, who are working as guard and attender in the department of Horticulture said to be attesters to the panchnama and also eye witnesses to the alleged incident have partly supported to the case of prosecution. C.W.5-Ramesh Kumar, FDA in Horticulture department, C.W.6-Rajeshkumar, Assistant Horticulture Officer working in the department of Horticulture have said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have treated as partly hostile witnesses and cross examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. During the cross examination, these witnesses have clearly stated that they have not witnessed alleged incident. CW.8-Vedamurthy and CW.9-Iqbal Ibrahimsab working as drivers in the Horticulture department examined as PWs.7 and 8. CW.11-Tippareddi, retired Assistant Horticulture Officer, CW.13-Phaniraj, agricultural officer working in the Horticulture department examined as PW.10. CW.15-Muddangouda-ex-president of HOPCOM examined as PW.11. CW.10-Neelappa, Assistant Horticultural Officer examined as PW.12. CW.14-Parameshwarappa, Assistant Horticultural Officer examined as PW.13. CW.17-Suryanarayan working in Horticultural department examined as PW.14. CW.16-Gali Shankrappa, director of HOPCOM examined as PW.16. CW.18-Narendra said to be attester to the panchanama examined as PW.16. CW.12-Sunder Reddi examined as PW.19, they have not supported to the case of prosecution. CW.18- Narendranath examined as PW.17. He has deposed in his evidence as to the issuance of attendance certificate, which is marked as EX.P.9. CW.19-Bhaskar Rai-Circle Inspector of Police examined as PW.15. He has deposed in his evidence with regard to the investigation and also deposed as to the filing of the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by both the Courts as to the order of conviction for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 355, 353 and 504 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgments do not call for interference by this Court.

10. With regard to sentence passed by the trial Court is concerned, the trial Court has sentenced the accused to under go simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. Further the accused is imposed with the sentence to under go simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC, further the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned the reasons on imposing imprisonment and not extended the benefit of provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has also not assigned any reasons for extending the benefit of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.