IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1288/2019 BETWEEN:
Veerendra M.D., S/o late Doddathamaiah Aged about 39 years Agriculturist, Muttanahalli Village, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District-571 428.
(By Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by K.M. Doddi Police Station, Mandya District, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Benglauru-560 001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 01.08.2019 in S.C.No.122/2018 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya and discharge the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 114 and 212 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.7 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1.8.2019 in S.C.No.122/2018 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya for discharge of accused No.7.
3. Though this case is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same has been taken up for final disposal.
4. The case of the complainant is that on 20.1.2017 CW6 spoke with the wife of accused No.1 over mobile. In that regard some altercation took place and the matter has been pacified. In that connection and with that motive accused No.1 on 26.1.2017 at about 10.00 p.m. came along with other accused persons in a car to the house of CW2 and dashed against bullock cart. On hearing the sound deceased Sharath came out of the house and told accused Nos.2 to 6 to drive the car properly. In that altercation, accused Nos.3 and 5 caught hold of the deceased and accused No.2 took the knife and stabbed on his chest and deceased died on the spot. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the trial Court without looking into the material placed on record has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly dismissed the application. It is his further submission that the trial Court has specifically observed that there is only voluntary statement of accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 and their statement has not having any value in the evidence and it is not reliable. At the most, the statement of the accused is admissible only in respect of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without looking into the said fact by relying upon the statement of other witnesses, it has come to the conclusion that it cannot be held that accused Nos.1, 7 and 8 are not involved in the alleged crime. The trial Court has not appreciated the statement of all the witnesses. It is his further submission that the charge sheet material if it is in its entirety looked into, except saying that accused No.7 instigated the other accused persons, no other material is there. It is his further submission that where, when and how he instigated the other accused persons is also not specifically stated by the witnesses. On the vague statement of the witnesses it cannot be held that the accused No.7 has been involved in a case. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order and discharge accused No.7.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that it is not only the statement of the accused, but the charge sheet material indicates that one week prior to the alleged incident there was altercation between the parties and the matter has been set aside and with that animosity the accused persons came in a car and there they stabbed with a knife and caused death. It is his further submission that accused No.7 has instigated and abetted them to commit the said offence. CWs.,6, 7, 8 and 9 have also stated the said aspect. By taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances the Court below has rightly dismissed the application.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. Before going to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel, while hearing the application for discharge the Court below is having undoubted power to shift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose for finding out as to whether there is prima facie case has been made out as against the accused or not.
8. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court, the trial Court has not clearly stated whether it has gone through all the statement of the witnesses and thereafter it has come to the conclusion. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has only stated that on perusal of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1, 2 and 7, the names of accused Nos.1 and 7 has been referred and they have given shelter. So in that premise the application came to be dismissed. That itself goes to show that the trial Court has not fully applied its mind and has passed the order.
9. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that if the matter is remitted to the Court below to reconsider all the charge sheet material, and thereafter a reasoned order may be passed in this behalf, it would meet the ends of justice.
10. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the petition is allowed and the order passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 1.8.2019 in S.C.No.122/2018 is set aside and matter remitted back to the Court below to dispose in accordance with law.
IA No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-