IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.745/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Hanumanthappa S/o late Siddalingappa Aged about 58 years Agriculturist 2. Smt. Lalithamma W/o Hanumanthappa Aged about 45 years Agriculturist 3. Smt. Gangamma W/o late Channappa Aged about 42 years Agriculturist 4. Smt. Gangamma S., W/o late Siddalingappa Aged about 68 years Agriculturist All are residents of Doggalli Village Harihara Taluk Davanagere District-577 601.
… Petitioners (By Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Harihara Rural Police Station Davanagere District Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001 (By Sri S.T. Naik, HCGP) … Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 02.12.2017, in S.C.No.43/2017, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere and discharge the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 323, 324, 506, 302, 109 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Though this case has been posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7 challenging the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.Nos.43/2017 and 85/2017 dated 2.12.017.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.T.Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire charge sheet material if it is read, except a word the accused persons have abetted, there presence is not stated and no overt acts have been stated and even at which place and time they have abetted the remaining accused persons has not been stated. He further submitted that all the family members of accused persons have been roped because of the civil disputes pending between the parties. He further submitted that except the said single sentence, prima facie no material has been made out as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7 so as to frame the charge.
The trial Court on considering the said aspect has wrongly come to the conclusion and has dismissed the application. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the order dated 2.12.2017.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there is prima facie material as against the petitioner/accused to show that the civil disputes are pending between the parties and it is accused Nos.4 to 7 abetted. In pursuance of the said abetment committed by them, the remaining accused persons have committed the heinous offence of murder. He further submitted that if the accused persons abetted to commission of the offence, then under such circumstances the provisions of Section 109 of IPC are attracted and they are also liable for the said offence independently along with other offences.
5. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material as against the petitioner/accused so as to discharge the accused persons from the charge levelled against them. The trial Court after considering the said facts and circumstances has come to a right conclusion and has rightly dismissed the petition. On these grounds prays to dismissed the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I have also perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the civil disputes are pending in respect of the land before the Civil Court. The only allegation which has been made as against the petitioners/ accused Nos.4 to 7 is that the accused persons have abetted or instigated accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the alleged offence and they told they will look into the matter. i.e. the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only when the witnesses are going to be examined before the Court. Now at this juncture it cannot be said that at what place and at what time they have instigated or abetted the accused persons. Usually the abetment and the instigation are not done in a open place and they are concealed. Under the said circumstances, until the witnesses are going to be examined before the Court, it is not going to be decided whether they have abetted or not. Though the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7 has not been stated in the charge sheet and the only allegation is with regard to abetment, then under such circumstances it is not a fit case to discharge the accused.
8. It is well settled principles of law that if there is strong suspicion as against the accused persons and if there is material to reasonably connecting the accused with the offence which has been alleged and if there is probability or chance of the accused being found guilty with any one of the charges levelled against him, then under such circumstances it is not a fit case to discharge the accused persons. On close scrutiny, there appears to be material as against the petitioners/accused.
9. It is also well settled principles of law that when the entire charge sheet material if it is perused, even if it is accepted in its face value, if no case has been made out as against the petitioners/accused, then under such circumstances the accused can be discharged in such a situation as existing in the present facts of the case on hand. Under the said facts and circumstances the petitioners/accused have not made out any grounds to allow the petition.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the order of the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the facts and material by discussing in detail has come to a right conclusion and there is no perversity or illegality in passing the order so as to interfere with the same.
Taking into consideration the above facts, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, IA No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-