Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1102 (KAR)

Chinnappaiah v. State of Karnataka

2023-09-19

S.RACHAIAH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 14/2/2019 in C.C.No.151/2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Srinivasapura and its confirmation judgment and order dtd. 9/1/2020 in Crl.A.No.25/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 323 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. The petitioners are the accused before the Trial Court and the appellant before the Appellate Court. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 21/1/2015 at about 7.30 p.m., in the night, in front of the house of the complainant, the accused Nos.1 to 3 formed a group and picked up a quarrel with PW.1-Satish. It is further stated that, accused No.1 abused PW.1 in filthy language, and accused No.3 assaulted PW.1 with a club and caused injuries. In the meantime, PW.2-Sarala W/o PW.1 rushed to pacify the quarrel, accused No.2 slapped her on her cheeks and assaulted her with their hands, and all three accused threatened PWs.1 and 2 that they would be killed. After the incident, a complaint came to be lodged by PW.1. The police have registered a case in Crime No.11/2015 for the offences under Ss. 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and marked 5 documents as Exhibits P1 to P5 and also identified MO.1-stick. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Ss. 323 and 324 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 5. Heard Shri G.M Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 5. Heard Shri G.M Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal, and opposed to facts and law. 7. It is further submitted that PWs.1 to 3 are the interested witnesses and it is admitted in the cross-examination that, both the petitioners and family of PW.1 were not in cordial terms, and none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court should have considered the admission of PW.3 that they are not on good terms. 8. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, it cannot be construed that, the alleged incident had taken place and the petitioners have assaulted PWs.1 and 2. Even though, PWs.1 and 2 have produced medical certificates which are marked as Exs.P4 and P5, the said injuries found in those wound certificates are referred to as simple. The Doctor who treated PWs.1 and 2 was examined as PW.6 and admitted in her cross-examination that, there is also the possibility of sustaining such injuries in another way. When the Doctor admitted that the alleged injuries might have been caused in another way i.e., other than this quarrel, a conviction based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 appears to be erroneous, perverse, and illegal, hence, the said conviction requires to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short 'HCGP') justifying the concurrent findings and submits that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the eyewitnesses to the incident and medical certificates at Exs.P4 and P5 indicate that, the petitioners have assaulted PWs.1 and 2. All the witnesses consistently supported the case of the prosecution and withstood the cross-examination. Nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination except that there was no cordial relationship between the petitioners and PWs.1 and 2. That may not be sufficient to disbelieve the version of PWs.1, 2, and 3. All the witnesses consistently supported the case of the prosecution and withstood the cross-examination. Nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination except that there was no cordial relationship between the petitioners and PWs.1 and 2. That may not be sufficient to disbelieve the version of PWs.1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are appropriate and there is error or infirmity in the said findings. Having submitted thus, learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the points which arise for my consideration are: i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the petitioners for the offences under Ss. 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC are sustainable? ii) Whether the petitioners have made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below for conviction? 11. This Court being a Revisional Court, having regard to the scope and ambit envisaged to appreciate the facts and law, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence and also the law, to ascertain as to whether any illegality or perversity or error committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction. 12. To avoid the repetition of the facts, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to ascertain, any error committed by the Courts below in appreciating the evidence and applying the law. PW.1 has stated that on the date of the alleged incident at about 7.30 p.m., he and his wife were quarreling with each other, by that time, the petitioners herein misunderstood that PWs.1 and 2 were scolding them and started quarreling with PWs.1 and 2 and assaulted them. The overt act of each of the petitioners is elaborately stated and supports the case of the prosecution. 13. It is further noticed in the evidence of PW.1 that, all the petitioners have thrown the infant of PW.2 to the ground and assaulted PW.2 indiscriminately, however, no such medical certificate is produced in connection with the treatment having been given to the child after the incident. 14. PW.2 in her evidence has stated that, accused No.3 threw her 10 days infant to the ground and accused No.2 assaulted her. 14. PW.2 in her evidence has stated that, accused No.3 threw her 10 days infant to the ground and accused No.2 assaulted her. PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW.3 who is the mother of PW.1 also supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses are consistent in their evidence that PWs.1 and 2 have been assaulted, and their child was thrown to the ground by accused No.3. However, there is no whisper regarding treatment having been given to the child. If the child was thrown to the ground, certainly, the child would have sustained injuries. In the absence of treatment for the child, it cannot be construed that, the quarrel had taken place between the petitioners and P.W.1 and 2. The Doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2 did not state any treatment given to the infant. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners have assaulted PWs 1 and 2. However, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that, the child also sustained the injury in the said incident, however, no treatment was given to the child. Whereas, PWs 1 and 2 have gone to the hospital for treatment appears to be highly unbelievable and illogical. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction appear to be perverse, and illegal and the same is required to be set aside. 15. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of inimical witness has to be considered with caution and diligent. When the evidence of inimical eyewitnesses were not corroborated by other independent witnesses, conviction cannot be recorded. In the instant case, on reading of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it appears that PWs.1 to 3 and the petitioners are not in good terms. There are contradictions and descripancies in the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses. It is needless to say that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Despite of several discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the Trial Court recorded the conviction, which appears to be erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 16. It is needless to say that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Despite of several discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the Trial Court recorded the conviction, which appears to be erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 16. In the light of the observations made above, the points that arose for my consideration are answered as under:- Point No.(i) - "Negative" Point No.(ii) - "Affirmative" 17. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 14/2/2019 passed in C.C.No.151/2015 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Srinivasapura and the judgment and order dtd. 9/1/2020 passed in Crl.A.No.25/2019 by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, are set aside. (iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences under Ss. 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.