Karnataka High Court
Sri Neelagiriyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2025
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1343 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NEELAGIRIYAPPA
S/O RAMALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SRI. NINGARAJA
S/O NEELAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MATADAKURUBARAHATTI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST.-577501.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
(BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADV.)
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.08.19
10:42:18 +0530
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED BY THE
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A.NO.31/2018 AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 07.06.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.986/2013 AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS FROM THE CHARGED LEVELED
AGAINST THEM BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV ORDER
The accused-revision petitioners have preferred this
revision against the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 07th June, 2018 passed by the Court of the
I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga (hereinafter
referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.986 of 2013
which is confirmed by the order dated 16th November, 2018
passed in Criminal Appeal No.31/2018 by the I Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to
as 'Appellate Court' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to this revision petition indicate that
the Chitradurga Rural Police filed charge sheet against the
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323,
326, 354, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
-3-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 17th June,
2013 at about 2.00 p.m., while the accused No.2 was parking
the bicycle in front of the back door of the complainant's house,
the complainant requested accused No.2 to park the bicycle
elsewhere, stating that passage through the said door was
obstructed. At that time, accused No.2 allegedly abused the
complainant in filthy language. Upon questioning by the
complainant, accused 1 and 2, acting in concert, again abused
the complainant. Accused No.1 allegedly dragged the
complainant by holding the complainant's tuft, and both
accused assaulted the complainant with hands and legs.
Accused No.2 allegedly assaulted the complainant with a
wooden stick on both hands, causing fracture to the right hand.
Further, the accused allegedly issued threats to take the
complainant's life. Thus, the accused committed the alleged
offences.
5. After filing of the charge sheet, the jurisdictional
Magistrate took cognizance against the accused for the
aforesaid offences. The case was registered in CC.No.986 of
2013 and in response to summons, accused appeared before
the trial Court and were enlarged on bail. Charges were
framed against the accused for the alleged commission of
-4-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
offences. The accused, upon understanding the charges,
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the charges of the accused, the
prosecution examined eight witnesses as PWs1 to 8 and 27
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P27. Upon closure of
prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section
313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused
totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses but, have
not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial
Court convicted the accused 1 and 2 for offences punishable
under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. Further, the trial Court sentenced the
accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo three months simple
imprisonment. Further accused No.2 is punished for the
offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code with
simple imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
-5-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
six months, accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the
offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo three
months simple imprisonment and accused 1 and 2 are also
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year with
fine of Rs.5,000 each for the offence punishable under Section
506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. The
trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused
preferred appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chitradurga in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2018 and the
same came to be dismissed on 16th November, 2018. Being
aggrieved by the judgments of both the Courts, the accused
have preferred this revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners
submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the
Appellate Court is illegal and erroneous. It was contended that
both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on
-6-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
record in proper perspective. Further, it is submitted that the
alleged incident occurred on 17th June, 2013 at 2.00 p.m., but,
the First Information Report reached to the Court only on 18th
June, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. As per the First Information Report,
it is stated that the date and time of dispatch of the First
Information Report is shown as 17th June, 2013 at 17.00 hrs.
Further, the First Information Report was not submitted to the
Court on the same day and that there is inordinate delay in
submitting the same to the Court. Admittedly, there is a civil
dispute between the accused and the complainant in
O.S.No.301 of 2012. The wound certificate does not disclose
the name of the accused. The investigating officer has not
explained as to the delay in submission of First Information
Report to the Court.
9. It was further contended that there is inconsistency
between the contents of Ex.P1 and the evidence of material
witness PW1 and other witnesses. PW1 and other eyewitnesses
are close relatives of the complainant and though they have not
witnessed the incident, the investigating officer has figured
them as eyewitnesses. During the course of cross-examination
of investigating officer, Ex.D4 i.e. the discharge summary
pertaining to accused No.2- Ningappa shows that the accused
-7-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
No.2 was admitted to the hospital on the same day i.e. on
17.06.2013 at the District Hospital, Chitradurga with a history
of assault. Although the said accused was admitted to the
hospital with such history of assault, the investigating officer
has not registered the case against the concerned accused even
though the incident constituted a cognizable offence. Instead,
he has issued an endorsement as per Ex.D3 to the accused
No.2-Ningappa.
10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners submitted that the investigating officer has
suppressed the material facts and filed the charge sheet only at
the instance of the complainant. There was absolutely no
cogent or corroborative evidence before the Court below but
however, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the
alleged offence and the appellate Court without properly
appreciating the evidence on record upheld the judgment of the
trial Court which is not sustainable under law. On all these
grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition.
11. As against this, the learned High Court Government
Pleader Sri. M R Patil, submitted that, both the Courts have
properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with
-8-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
law and facts and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere
with the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed
by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and
accordingly, sought to dismiss the revision petition.
12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of records, the following point arises for my
consideration:
"Whether the judgment and order of the
Tribunal is perverse, capricious and suffers from
legal infirmities?"
13. I have examined the materials placed before me.
The genesis of this case arises from the complaint filed by the
informant-Puttamma w/o Late Veerabhadrappa in which she
has stated as under:
"ºÉýPÉ
¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä UÀAqÀ ¯ÉÃmï «Ãg¨sÀzÀæ¥Àà ªÀAiÀiÁ: 35 ªÀµÀð, ªÀÄ£ÉPÉ®¸À,
PÀÄgÀħgÀ d£ÁAUÀÀ, JªÀiï.PÉ. ºÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð.
¢£ÁAPÀ 17.06.2013
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
»A¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ¤Ã®VjAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÀÆ »A¢¤AzÀ
eÁUÀzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÉʱÀÀªÀÄå«zÀÄÝ F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.06.2013
gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 2.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ »AzÉ ¨ÁV®
ºÀwÛgÀ ¤Ã®VAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï EnÖzÀÝjAzÀ ¤Ã®VjAiÀÄ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ
-9-
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
¤AUÀgÁd¤UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ NqÁqÀ°PÉÌ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÉÛ. ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï
AiÀiÁPÉ E°è EnÖ¢ÝÃAiÀÄ JAvÀ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ £Á£ÉãÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä eÁUÀzÀ°è EnÖ®è
ºÉÆÃUÀ¯Éà ¨ÉÆøÀr PÀvÉÛ ¸ÀÆ¼É JAvÀ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁrzÀ
CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä eÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ElÄÖ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÉÄ£ÉÆÃ
JAvÀ ºÉýzÀPÉÌ ¤Ã®VAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AUÀgÁd E§âgÀÄ ¨ÉÆøÀr ªÀÄvÉÛ
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwAiÉÄÃ£É JAvÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ ¤Ã®VjAiÀÄ¥Àà £À£Àß vÀ¯É PÀÆzÀ®Ä
»rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÀ, ¤AUÀgÁd ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤Ã®VjAiÀÄ¥Àà E§âgÀÄ PÉÊPÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ
£À£Àß ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤AUÀgÁd
¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°èzÀÝ jÃ¥ÀgÀ PÀnÖUɬÄAzÀ £À£Àß JqÀUÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, §®UÉÊUÉ
§®ªÁV ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÝjAzÀ §®UÉÊ ªÀÄÄj¢gÀÄvÉÛ. F £ÉÆë¤AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ
PÀÆVPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝUÀ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß EµÀÖPÉÌ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤£Àß ¥Áæt vÉUÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ
JAvÀ E§âgÀÄ ¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ. F UÀ¯ÁmÉ ±À§Ý PÉý £ÀªÀÄä
UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ vÀAzÉ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ dAiÀĪÀÄä E§âgÀÆ
UÀ¯ÁmÉ ©r¹ PÀ½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼Éà £À£ÀߣÀÄß DmÉÆÃzÀ°è
PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ aQvÉì §UÉÎ avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR®Ä
ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. eÁUÀzÀ ªÉʱÀªÀÄå ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀªÀgÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ JAvÀ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ zÀÆgÀÄ
¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
14. On the basis of complaint on 17th June, 2013 at 3.00
pm, Chitradurga Rural Police have registered a case against the
accused in Crime No.242 of 2013 for offence punishable under
Sections 504, 323, 326, 354, 506, read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the Court on 18th June
2013. FIR-Exhibit P4 discloses that the time and date of
dispatch of FIR to the Court is on 17th June 2013 at 17.00
hours, but the endorsement of the learned Magistrate shows
receipt on 18th June, 2013 at 11.00 am. Exhibit P2, being the
spot mahazar, reveals that the mahazar was conducted on 18th
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
June, 2013 between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m., but was not submitted
to the Court along with the FIR and was produced only at the
time of filing the charge sheet. PW1- Puttamma has deposed in
her evidence as to the contents of Exhibit P1-complaint. Exhibit
P9 is the wound certificate issued by Senior Casualty Medical
Officer of Chitradurga Hospital, which reveals that Puttamma
aged 40 years w/o Veerabhadrappa came to the hospital with
the history of assault on 17th June 2013 at 2.00 pm
accompanied by one Lingaraju and she was examined on the
same day at 2:30 pm. Exhibit P8 is the discharge summary
issued by Chitradurga Orthocare Centre, which reveals that
Puttamma was admitted to the hospital on 19th June 2013 and
was discharged on 24th June 2013. Further, it reveals that
Puttamma was admitted to hospital with the history of assault
on 17th June, 2013. During the course of cross-examination of
PW1, she has admitted that she has taken treatment in the
Government Hospital soon after the incident. Further, she has
deposed that since the hospital authorities have expressed their
inability to treat her, she has taken treatment in the private
Hospital. Further, she has admitted that the government
doctors have issued referral chit to take treatment in a private
Hospital. The same is not produced by the prosecution. Exhibit
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
P9-Wound certificate reveals that the injury No.1 i.e. pain and
tenderness, is a grievous injury and injury No.2 dislocation in
left elbow, is a simple injury. This wound certificate also
reveals that the hospital authorities have taken x-ray vide
No.991 dated 17th June, 2013. The Senior Casualty Medical
Officer of District Hospital, Chitradurga has not referred the
patient to the private hospital as stated by PW1. Dr M.S.
Satish, Medical Officer who treated the injured PW1 is cited as
CW6. Though the Medical Officer who has treated the injured
at the first instance is cited as witness, he is not examined by
the prosecution. The wound certificate does not reveal the
name of two accused or the weapon used by the accused is also
not mentioned in it. If really the accused had assaulted PW1 as
stated in exhibit P1-complaint, she would have revealed the
name of the accused as also the weapon used by accused
before the Doctor. It is admitted fact that PW1 was admitted to
District Hospital, Chitradurga. PW1 has sustained injuries only
to her hand, which is not a vital part of the body. Even she was
not admitted to the hospital as an inpatient. The investigating
officer has not collected any material to show that she was
admitted in the district hospital as an inpatient. The district
hospital authorities have not referred the injured to the private
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
hospital expressing their inability to treat her. However,
without any reference from the District Hospital, PW1 herself
voluntarily got admitted to the private hospital after lapse of
two days from the date of incident i.e. on 19th June, 2013 and
was discharged on 24th June 2013. Even in the discharge
summary, also the name of the accused is not shown and there
is no mention as to the weapon used. The case sheet
maintained by the Chitradurga Orthocare Centre from 19th to
24th June 2013 is also not produced. District Hospital Authorities
have not referred the injured to any private hospital, including
the Chitradurga Orthocare Centre. PW1 got admitted to the
hospital with history of assault on 17th June, 2013. Dr M.S.
Rajesh who has issued Exhibit P8, is examined as PW7. He has
not whispered anything against the accused. Even he has not
deposed that PW1 has received injuries with ripper patti.
Therefore, the injuries shown in the discharge summary will
create doubt as to the alleged incident for the reason that after
lapse of two days and after taking treatment from the district
hospital at Chitradurga and without any reference from the
District Hospital, PW1 has got admitted to Chitradurga
Orthocare Centre. The investigating officer has not collected
any materials as to why the PW1 got admitted to the said
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
hospital and whether she was admitted to the hospital with the
history of assault made by the accused on 17th June 2013 or
due to any other incident. Delay in admitting to the private
hospital without any reference advice from the district hospital,
Chitradurga, has not been explained by the prosecution.
Investigating officer has also not explained as to the case sheet
maintained by the District Hospital, Chitradurga or by the
Chitradurga Orthocare Centre. All these lapses will create
reasonable doubt as to the alleged incident.
15. With regard to the alleged assault, PW1 deposed
that accused No.1 caught hold of the tuft of PW1, accused No. 2
pulled the saree, kicked with legs, and hit both hands with a
ripper patti, causing fracture of the right hand. CWs2 and 3
intervened and separated the quarrel.
16. CW2-Jayamma and CW3-Venkatesh, examined as
PWs2 and 3, deposed that accused 1 and 2 assaulted PW1 and
that they intervened. PW3 admitted in cross-examination that
upon visiting the spot, the quarrel had already ended, and PW3
shifted the injured to the hospital. PW2 admitted as to not
giving any statement to the police. Both PWs2 and 3 admitted
being close relatives of PW1.
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
17. Sri Papanna, Head Constable No.115, examined as
PW6, deposed that the statements of PWs2 and 3 were
recorded, but did not state the date of recording. The copies of
the statements reveal that the investigating officer recorded
them on 18th June, 2013. These statements were not
submitted at the earliest opportunity but were placed before the
Court only at the time of filing the charge sheet. PW2 admitted
in evidence that no statement was given to the police. It is
admitted that prior to the incident, PW1 had filed Original Suit
No.301 of 2012 against the accused and obtained an injunction
order. The Chitradurga Rural Police had summoned the accused
to the police station and threatened them not to put up
construction. PW1 admitted that on 30th October, 2012 the
appeal was dismissed, after which the accused constructed and
resided in the house. Delay in submitting the FIR to the Court;
delay in recording statements of material witnesses; submission
of those statements only with the charge sheet, absence of the
name of accused in the wound certificate or discharge
summary, admission of PW1 to a private hospital after two days
without referral from the District Hospital, so also failure of
prosecution witnesses to explain these lapses, create
reasonable doubt as to the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
- 15 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
PWs1 to 3 are close relatives, and given the existing property
dispute, the evidence is exaggerated. The investigating officer
failed to examine any independent witnesses despite their
availability, thereby weakening the prosecution case.
18. Additionally, the prosecution has not produced
Exhibits P10 to P27 at the time of filing the charge-sheet. It is
evident from the order sheet that after evidence of PW1,
application was filed under Section 311 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to recall the evidence for further examination and the
same was allowed on 7th June, 2016. An Application under
Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the
Prosecution and the Court has passed the order on the
Application on 28th July, 2017. Upon allowing the said
application filed by the prosecution, thereafter Exhibits P10 to
P27, which are medical bills, prescriptions of different dates,
X-rays issued by Chitradurga Orthocare Centre and the District
Hospital, Chitradurga, are submitted after filing of charge-sheet.
How these documents are related to the injuries caused to PW1
has not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, these
documents will not come to the aid of the prosecution to
substantiate the fact that the accused have caused grievous and
simple hurt to PW1 with the help of MO1. The prosecution
- 16 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
failed to produce Exhibits P10 to P27 at the time of filing the
charge sheet. The order sheet reveals that after the evidence of
PW1, an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was filed to recall PW1 for further examination, which
was allowed on 07th June, 2016. Subsequently, an application
under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution and
allowed on 28th July, 2017. Only thereafter, Exhibits P10 to
P27, comprising medical bills, prescriptions, and X-rays from
Chitradurga Orthocare Centre and the District Hospital, were
submitted. The prosecution has not explained how these
documents relate to the injuries allegedly caused to PW1.
These documents therefore cannot substantiate the
prosecution's claim that the accused caused grievous and
simple hurt to PW1 using MO1.
19. It is not in dispute that the trial Court has acquitted
the accused for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has not
preferred any appeal as to the acquittal of the accused under
Section 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In
paragraph 45 of the judgment, the trial Court has clearly
observed that there is an improvement in the evidence of PW1.
- 17 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
20. With respect to pulling of saree by accused No.1,
PW1 has not stated anything in this regard. Further, the trial
Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the
essential ingredients under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code
and accordingly has acquitted the accused. Though the trial
Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under section
354 Indian Penal Code, neither the State nor the victim i.e.
PW1, have preferred any appeal against the same. This
conduct of PW1 clearly goes to that the testimony of PW1
cannot be believed without any supporting independent
evidence. It is undisputed that the Trial Court acquitted the
accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and that neither
the State nor PW1 preferred any appeal. Paragraph 45 of the
trial Court judgment notes that the testimony of PW1 contained
improvements. Specifically, regarding the allegation of saree
pulling by accused No.1, PW1 had not made such a statement
earlier. The Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove
the ingredients of Section 354 IPC and acquitted the accused.
The absence of an appeal by the prosecution or PW1 against
this finding further supports that PW1's testimony cannot be
relied upon without independent corroboration.
- 18 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
21. At the time of recording statement under Section
313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused 1 and 2 submitted
written statements in Kannada, which are reproduced verbatim
below:
"UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ 1£Éà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è, avÀæzÀÄUÀð
¸À.¸À. £ÀA.986/2013
«gÀÄzÀÞ
¦gÁå¢ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ
UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ ¤Ã®VjAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆߧâgÀÄ
1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ºÉýPÉ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀÄ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.313gÀ
Cr
£Á£ÀÄ F PÉù£À°è 1£Éà DgÉÆæ DVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 2£Éà DgÉÆæ
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. F PÉù£À ¥ÀgÁå¢AiÀÄÄ £À£Àß
¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ UÀ°è EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ
¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄ£É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÉÊn£À°è ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä
¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÁV¤AzÀ®Æ ¥ÀgÁå¢ £À£Àß
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «£ÁB PÁgÀt ºÉÆmÉÖQZÀÄÑ ºÉÆA¢ zÉéõÀ
¸Á¢ü¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÀAvÉ MAzÀ£Éà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¹«¯ï
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ (Q.«) avÀæzÀgÀÎ E°è N.J¸ï. 301/12
zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ KPÀ¥ÀQëÃAiÀÄ ¤§ðAzsÀPÁeÉÕAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ
ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖzÀAvÉ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨ÉzÀj¹ vÀqÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ
£Á£ÀÄ ªÀQîgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁV £À£Àß ¥ÀgÀ zÁR¯Áw
ºÁUÀÆ vÀPÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤§ðAzsÀPÁeÉÕ
DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅ UÉƽ¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ
- 19 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ (».«) avÀæzÀÄUÀð
EªÀgÀ°è JA.J.19/12 ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¦AiÀiÁ𢠸À°è¹zÀ
ªÉÄîä£À« ¸ÀºÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÉÆA¢UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ
G¸ÀÄÛªÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀiÁzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÁV¤AzÀ®Æ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ¥Àæw¤vÀå CªÁZÀå
±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, «£Á PÁgÀt UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ 2£ÉÃ
DgÉÆæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ:30-3-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ,
F §UÉÎ avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ¢£À aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÆ
¸ÀºÀ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹PÉƼÀî°®è. PÀÄlÄA§zÀ »jAiÀÄgÀ
ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£ÀzÀAvÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÉÄà DVzÀÝjAzÀ
PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è zÉéõÀ EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðUÉƽ¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
13-6-2013gÀAzÀÄ UÀȺÀ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CA¢¤AzÀ ¥Àæw ¢£À
¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ, UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
E£ÀÄß eÁ¹Û ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ¼É.
»ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17-6-2013gÀAzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ «£ÁB
PÁgÀt UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ
£Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À£ÀÄß avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁr ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-
6-2013 gÀªÀgÉUÉ M¼ÀgÉÆÃVAiÀiÁV aQvÉì ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ F §UÉÎ
¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ
UÀAUÁzsÀgï, ªÀQîgÀÄ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð EªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁªÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉøÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
ªÀÄÄAzÁVgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¦gÁå¢ (¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄä) EªÀjUÉ «ZÁgÀ w½zÀÄ
ªÀQîgÁzÀ UÀAUÁzsÀgïªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁªÀzÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À
- 20 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
ªÉÄÃ¯É F ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ
ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ
zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ
¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÁV ¥ÁæxÀð£É.
DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «£ÀªÀÄæ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV PÉý
PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß F PÉù£À°è ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢üAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹
©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV ¥ÁæxÀð£É."
22. The statement of accused No.2 is as under:
"UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ 1£Éà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è avÀæzÀÄUÀð
¸À.¸À. £ÀA.986/2013
«gÀÄzÀÞ
¦gÁå¢ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ
UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ ¤Ã®VjAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆߧâgÀÄ
2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ºÉýPÉ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀÄ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.313gÀ
Cr.
£Á£ÀÄ F PÉù£À°è 2£Éà DgÉÆæ DVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 1£Éà DgÉÆæ
£À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÉù£À ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ
¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ UÀ°è EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ
¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄ£É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÉÊn£À°è ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä
¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÁV¤AzÀ®Æ ¦gÁå¢ £ÀªÀÄä
PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É «£ÁB PÁgÀt ºÉÆmÉÖQZÀÄÑ ºÉÆA¢ zÉéõÀ
¸Á¢ü¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
- 21 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÀAvÉ
MAzÀ£Éà ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ (Q.«)
avÀæzÀÄUÀð E°è N.J¸ï. 301/12 zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ
zÁR°¹ KPÀ¥ÀQëÃAiÀÄ ¤§AðzsÀPÁeÉÕAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖzÀAvÉ
¥ÉǰøÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨ÉzÀj¹ vÀqÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ
ªÀQîgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁV CªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ zÁR¯Áw
ºÁUÀÆ vÀPÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤¨sÀAðzÀPÁeÉÕ
DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅ UÉƽ¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ
¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ(».«) avÀæzÀÄUÀð EªÀgÀ°è JA.J.19/12
ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸ÀºÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ
DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀeÁUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ
G¸ÀÄÛªÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä
¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÁV¤AzÀ®Æ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ¥Àæw¤vÀå CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ
¨ÉÊzÀÄ, «£Á PÁgÀt UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ:
30-3-2013 gÀAzÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è
MAzÀÄ ¢£À aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß
zÁR°¹PÉƼÀî°®è. PÀÄlÄA§zÀ »jAiÀÄgÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£ÀzÀAvÉ
¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÉÄà DVzÀÝjAzÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è
zÉéõÀ EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉƽ¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13-
6-2013gÀAzÀÄ UÀȺÀ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CA¢¤AzÀ ¥Àæw ¢£À
¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ, UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
E£ÀÄß eÁ¹Û ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
»ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17-6-2013gÀAzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄÄ «£ÁB
PÁgÀt UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ
- 22 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR¯ÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-6-2013 gÀªÀgÉUÉ
M¼ÀgÉÆÃVAiÀiÁV aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ºÁUÀÆ F §UÉÎ ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ
¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ UÀAUÁzsÀgÀ, ªÀQîgÀÄ,
avÀæzÀÄUÀð EªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁªÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉøÀ£ÀÄß
zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÁVgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ
¸ÀzÀj ¦gÁå¢ (¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄä) EªÀjUÉ «ZÁgÀ w½zÀÄ ªÀQîgÁzÀ
UÀAUÁzsÀgïgÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁªÀzÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É F
¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÁV
¥ÁæxÀð£É.
DzÀÝjAzÀ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «£ÀªÀÄæ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV PÉý
PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß F PÉù£À°è ¤gÀ¥ÀgÁ¢üAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹
©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV ¥ÁæxÀð£É."
23. In the statements, both accused stated that on 17th
June, 2013 the complainant quarreled without cause and
assaulted accused No.2. The statements further narrate enmity
between the accused and PW1 over house construction, and
pending suits and appeals. Accused No.2 stated admission to
the District Hospital on 17th June, 2013 and discharge on 19th
June, 2013. A complaint was lodged against PW1, but no action
was taken allegedly due to influence exerted by an advocate
related to PW1. Exhibits D1 to D4 were produced to
- 23 -
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
substantiate the defence, including Exhibit D4, the discharge
card of accused No. 2, showing admission with a history of
assault. Despite this, the District Hospital did not register a
medico-legal case. The police issued only an 'NC' endorsement
(Exhibit D3) and took no further action. The sequence of
events, including PW1's later admission to a private hospital
without medical advice and production of medical documents
thereafter, suggests an attempt to exaggerate the severity of
injuries.
24. Viewed in totality, the evidence of the prosecution
creates reasonable doubt and suspicious circumstances
regarding the alleged acts of the accused. As per the settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt must be
extended to the accused. Accordingly, the point framed for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
ORDER
i) Revision petition is allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 07th June, 2018 passed in C.C.No.986 of
2013 by the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge &
JMFC, Chitradurga, which is confirmed by order
– 24 –
CRL.RP No. 1343 of 2018
dated 16th November, 2018 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.31/2018 by the I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is set aside;
iii) Accused are acquitted of the offence under
Sections 504, 323, 326 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code;
iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused
shall be refunded to them in accordance with law;
v) Registry to send the trial court records along with
copy of this order to the concerned court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
[ad_1]
Source link