IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1160 OF 2018 Between:
Nagaraja M.T.
S/o. Late Thippeswamy, Aged about 22 years, OCC: Farmer, R/o. Alagavadi Village, Chitradurga Taluk – 577 501. ... Petitioner (By Sri. R.Shashidhara, Advocate) And:
State by Bharamasagara Police, Chitradurga Taluk – 577 501, By SPP High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.S.T.Naik, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in S.C.No.124/2015 dated 14.08.2017 and discharge the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 376, 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner herein has filed an application before the Trial Court under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the charges, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this revision petition along with an application in I.A.No.2/2018 seeking condonation of delay of 344 days in preferring this revision petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A.No.2/2018.
Perused the records.
3. The reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit for condoning the delay of 344 days, which shows that due to ill-health and financial difficulties, the petitioner could not meet the advocate and prepare the revision petition within time. As regards ill-health, the petitioner has not produced the medical certificate before the Court and also no other document is forthcoming to condone the delay in filing of the revision petition for more than 344 days. Therefore, the reasons stated in the affidavit is not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Hence, I.A.No.2/2018 is dismissed.
4. Even on perusal of the records, it is seen that the complaint has been filed by the victim and charge sheet has been filed by the Police against the petitioner under Section 376 of IPC based upon the complaint and the subsequent complaint filed by the victim before the Police. Merely because the FSL report does not reflect seminal stains and spermatozoa in the items sent to the FSL report, that itself is not a ground to discharge the petitioner from the charges.
5. It is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that when ocular evidence and medical evidence are contrary, ocular evidence of the victim holds good. Therefore, merely based on the first complaint filed by the victim, discharging the accused is not correct in the criminal case. The entire material placed before this Court should be appreciated including circumstantial evidence. Therefore, without examining PW-1-victim, the Court can not jump into the conclusion. That there is no material to frame the charges against the accused/petitioner herein. It is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in SLP (Crl.) 6374/2010, decided on 20.09.2010 that the Court requires to verify the material placed on record to frame the charges but not pros and cons for acquittal or conviction of the accused in the trial.
6. Therefore, even on the merits, the argument addressed by the petitioner is not acceptable and hence, the Criminal Revision Petition requires to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE MBM/KTY