IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.884 of 2018 BETWEEN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, D.K., MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) AND 1. ABOOBAKAR, S/O LATE M. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT ATTAVAR, NANDIGUDDE, MANGALURU - 575 001.
2. MOHAMMED TAIMIM, S/O T.A. AHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT SITE No.314-2, 2ND BLOCK, KATIPALLA, SURATHKAL - 575 014.
3. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O AHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MELBARAMBOO, KASARAGOD, KERALA STATE – 571 121.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION BY SETTING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED IN C.C.No.370/2015 DATED 04.08.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.No.7/2018 BY ORDER DATED 07.06.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State.
2. The State has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K., dated 04.08.2017, in CC No.370/2015, acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 504, 387, 506 read with 34 of IPC and the same was confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. by judgment dated 07.06.2018, in Crl.A.No.7/2018.
3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case before the Trial Court is that one Dr.Raghuthaman-PW.1 lodged a complaint to the Police on 25.11.2014, at about 4.15 p.m., alleging that some accused persons have forcibly entered into his house, abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him. It was further alleged that the accused-Aboobakar had demanded a ransom of Rs.50.00 lakhs and the complainant informed the same to the Police over telephone. On arrival of the Police, the accused fled away. Thereafter, a written complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P.1. Based on the said complaint and after investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. After framing of charges, the accused was put on trial. The prosecution in all examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, got marked six documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6 and no material objects were marked. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the Trial Court did not find the accused guilty of the charges leveled against them and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.7/2018 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., which came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this revision petition before this Court urging various grounds.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State has contended that even though there is evidence on record supported by PWs.1 to 3, the Trial Court has committed an error in disbelieving the evidence based on the civil dispute between the complainant and the accused persons. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, the State has preferred this revision petition seeking for setting aside of the judgment of acquittal passed by both the Courts below and for allowing the revision petition.
5. On perusal of the records and after hearing the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader, as per the complaint itself, it was stated by the complainant that the accused persons entered his house forcibly and threatened him to sell the property. The complainant is said to be running ‘Sagar Lodge’ at Mangaluru. It is seen from the evidence on record that previously the son of accused No.1 is said to have been running the said lodge on rental basis for Rs.75,000/- per month prior to 2013 and thereafter, there was an oral agreement between the complainant and the accused for selling the said lodge to the son of accused No.1 for Rs.75,00,000/- and when the accused approached the complainant, the complainant refused to sell the same on the ground that the value of the property is more than Rs.1,50,00,000/-. In this regard, the accused approached the complainant for selling the property. In this context, the complaint came to be lodged against the accused. In the cross-examination, it was admitted that there was a civil dispute between the complainant and the son of accused No.1 for arrears of rent payable by the son of accused No.1 to the complainant. The oral agreement was not disputed by the complainant to the effect that earlier he agreed to sell the property for Rs.75,00,000/- and later he refused to sell the same as it is worth more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Apart from that PW.3 is said to be the eyewitness, who is the relative of PW.1, whose name was not mentioned in the complaint Ex.P.1 and his presence is doubtful. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. PW.6 turned hostile. Apart from that, there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which was not explained. As per the complainant, when the accused were inside the house, he had telephoned to the Police and on arrival of the Police to the house, the accused persons said to have ran away. If that is the case, the complainant could have filed the complaint immediately on the date of the incident itself, but the complaint came to be filed after four days, which was not explained. Therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly held that the delay in lodging the complaint in this case is fatal. It is also admitted by the complainant in the cross-examination that there is no case registered against the accused to show that they are members of a terrorist group. Based upon the available record, the PW.1 admitted that no case was registered against accused No.1 to show that he is involved in terrorist activities, the Court below has extended the benefit of doubt on the ground that the there is a civil dispute between the parties and the Trial Court has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of LUNARAM vs. BHUPATSINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2009(4) KCCR 2417; T.P.BASAVARAJU vs. CBI reported in 2012(4) KCCR 2534 and RAJKUMAR SINGH @ RAJU BATYA vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN REPORTED IN 2013(4) KCCR SN 306. The findings given by the Trial Court was confirmed by the District and Sessions Judge. Normally, the concurrent findings of the Courts below acquitting the accused cannot be interfered with by this Court, since two views are possible, where one is in favour of the accused and another in favour of the complainant and the benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused. When a civil dispute is pending, there is every chance of filing a criminal case against the accused to avoid the accused from approaching him to sell the property, is not ruled out. In this background, I do not find any merit in this case for admitting the revision petition. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE mv