IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.218 of 2013 BETWEEN SRI PRASANNA KHAWAS, S/O SRI PRANAY KHAWAS, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/A. No.42, ROOM No.25, II FLOOR, SRI BALAJI P.G., MUNIYAPPA COMPLEX, MANGAMMANAPALYA, BANGALORE.
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE ) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SHANGAY NAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE, REP. BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 PASSED BY THE PRILIMINARY CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ON I.A. UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. IN S.C.No.432/2012.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.432/2012 dismissing his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the complaint of the complainant-Sharavana Chettri, the petitioner-accused, deceased and two other eyewitness were staying in a Hostel and on the date of the incident i.e., on 09.09.2011, there was no quarrel between them earlier, but all of a sudden after 5.30 p.m., there was a quarrel. At that time, the accused is said to have stabbed the deceased-Ishwar by Scissors and later, he was shifted to hospital and succumbed due to the injuries. A case came to be registered under Section 307 of IPC. After the death of the injured, the case was converted into an offence under Section 302 of IPC. Absolutely, there is no motive or intention for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any ill-will or motive or intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner have filed an application seeking his discharge from the charges for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, but the Trial Court, without assigning proper reason, has dismissed the application. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for setting aside of the same.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that as per the material placed on record by the Investigating Officer and the charge sheet clearly reveals that though the complaint has been filed by the complainant who does not know Kannada, but he has stated in English. The further statement of the complainant and the eyewitnesses reveal that the accused, while going to the room of the deceased, has taken Scissors in his pocket. During the quarrel, in spite of complainant holding the accused, the accused escaped from his clutches and went and stabbed the deceased on his stomach and caused grievous injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the hospital and he died due to the injuries. The Post-Mortem Examination Report and the evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly reveal that there was intention and preparation made by the accused, while going to the room of the deceased, as he has carried Scissors in his pocket and stabbed the deceased on his stomach. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 300 are made out. The weapon is also seized by the Police under the panchanama. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the case papers, it is clear that the complainant- Sharavana Chettri lodged the report before the Police on 10.09.2011 stating that on 09.09.2011, when they were staying in the college Hostel, the deceased Ishwar was staying alone in the room. On the date of the incident, the complainant, the accused and one Shangay went to the room of the deceased, where the quarrel took place, at that time the accused stabbed the deceased with Scissors and the victim sustained injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital. Based upon the report, a case has been registered by Sanjay Nagar Police in Crime No.248/2011 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, who took up the investigation. During treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries, on 11.09.2011. Thereafter, the offence was converted into an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The Investigating Officer, after investigation laid the charge sheet. The further statement given by the complainant Sharavana Chettri and the eyewitness Shangay goes to show that the accused while going to the room of the deceased, carried the Scissors in his pocket and during the quarrel, in spite of complainant holding the accused and the deceased was held by Shangay, the accused escaped from the clutches of the complainant, went and stabbed the deceased on his stomach. Therefore, looking to the statements of the eyewitnesses and the accused carrying the weapon in his pocket while going to the room of the deceased, it cannot be held that there is no intention or preparation made by the accused while going to the room of the deceased, in order to discharge the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. If there is a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation by the accused to assault or stab the deceased, he could have taken the said contention in the cross-examination as a defence, during Trial. But, at this stage, when the statement of the eyewitnesses are placed before the Court, the Court cannot draw any inference, that there was no intention or premeditation on the part of the accused for committing the offence, which is chargeable under Section 302 of IPC. While framing of charges, the Trial Court has to look into the material placed on record i.e. not only the FIR, but the statement of the witnesses, recovery and other circumstances placed on record by the Investigating Officer. The Court cannot meticulously go into the merits of the case either for discharge or acquittal of the accused while framing the charges. Therefore, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find and merit in the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner for discharging the petitioner of the charges leveled against him at this stage. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that trial has already begun and the petitioner as well as two of the witnesses were also examined by the Trial Court.
6. In view of the said submission, when there is no merit in the revision petition and no illegality found to set aside the order under revision, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the matter as early as possible. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made above.
In view of dismissal of the revision petition itself, I.A.No.1/2013 is also dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE mv