IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.722 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. S.N. Mahadeva, S/o. Late Nanjundappa, Aged about 48 years.
2. Smt. Devamma, W/o. S.N. Mahadeva, Aged about 37 years, Both R/o. Singattagere Village, C.A. Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District-572 120. (By Sri. Gaurav G.K , Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, K.M.Doddi Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. M. Diwakar Maddur, HCGP) ...Petitioners ...Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.610/2010 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur and also the judgment dated 27.04.2019 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.A.No.1/2019 and acquit the petitioner herein.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused Nos. 1 and 2, challenging the judgment passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.No.01/2019 dated 27.04.2019.
2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has remained absent. Since the Criminal Revision Petition cannot be dismissed for default, the same is taken up for final disposal on merits.
3. Facts leading to the case are that:
On 24.03.2010 at about 8.00 p.m. accused No.1 was passing in front of the house of CW-1, at that time, he asked accused No.1 to change the khatha of 20 guntas of land to his name. In that light, accused No.1 picked up the quarrel with the complainant and abused him with filthy language and thereafter, the accused No.2 came to the spot and instigated the accused No.1 to assault CW1 and handed over a iron rod to accused No.1. Accused No.1 assaulted on his elbow and left shoulder with iron rod. Accused No.2 also assaulted CW1 with hands and other accused persons have caused simple and grievous injuries. On the basis of the said report, the case was registered.
4. After completing the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. After hearing the learned counsel, charge was framed and accused pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried and as such trial was fixed. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and also got marked MOI – Iron rod.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. By taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner-accused. The trial Court has ignored the fact that all the witnesses are related and interested witnesses. Though there is no base, but the trial Court has convicted the accused. It is his further submission that trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused and the First Appellate Court confirmed the same. On these grounds prayed to allow the petition and to set aside impugned judgment.
6. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that PW-1 is the injured witness and PW2 is the eye witness. They have categorically deposed about the overt act of each of the accused. It is his further submission that earlier civil dispute were there between the parties and because of the said animosity when the complainant was proceeding, the accused person took the quarrel and assaulted him with iron rod and caused grievous injuries. It is his further submission that it is accused No.2 who instigated accused No.1 and caused the said inconvenience and subsequently it is accused No.2 who has also assaulted with hands along with accused No.1. It is further submitted that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court after considering the factual matrix has come to a right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and the trial Court order deserves to be confirmed.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.
8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 is the injured complainant. In his evidence by reiterating, it has been further deposed that on the alleged date of incident, the accused persons came in respect of the property dispute and have assaulted and caused the grievous injuries. It is further deposed that, when the complainant asked accused No.1 to change the khatha in respect of 20 guntas of land, at that time, he abused with filthy language and he and accused No.2 assaulted the complainant with iron rod. He has further deposed that he has filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. During the course of cross examination of this witness, though lengthy cross examination has been made, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said evidence. PW2 is the eye witness and he is also witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P2. He has also reiterated the evidence of PW1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the said evidence. PW-3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. PW-4 is partly investigated Investigating Officer. PW-6 is the doctor, who examined the injured and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P4. In his evidence he has opined that the said injuries are grievous in nature and they may be caused if a person is assaulted with rod. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PW-7 is the ASI, who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet as against the accused.
9. On going through the evidence produced before the Court below, it clearly goes to show that PW-1 is injured witness and PW2 is an eye witness to the alleged incident. They have categorically deposed about the overt act of each of the accused and nothing has been elicited to discard their evidence. Even their evidence corroborated with the wound certificate as per Ex.P4. It is not in dispute that because of the civil dispute pending between the parties, the accused persons questioned the complainant and assaulted with iron rod. The prosecution has also produced material as to treatment taken by the complainant in the hospital for a period of six months. That itself clearly goes to show that injuries suffered are grievous in nature.
10. It is contended that there is delay in lodging the complaint. Merely because there is some delay without there being any material to bring on record to show that the said delay has been deliberate, in that light, delay is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
11. When two eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, then under such circumstances, the same can be accepted. It is well settled proposition of law that it is the quality of the evidence which has to be seen and not the quantity of the evidence. It is well settled proposition of law that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution should not be looked into.
12. When admittedly civil dispute is there and eye witnesses have supported the case of prosecution to the effect that the accused persons have assaulted with iron rod and same is corroborated with Ex.P4 – Wound Certificate. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner-accused have not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the judgment of the First Appellate Court and trial Court.
Petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ag