- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 626 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. ARATHI W/O VENKATARAVANAPPA K.R., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. GANDAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE, BILLUR POST, PATHAPALYA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY K.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANASHEKARA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KAMALAMMA W/O RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SEETHA REDDY S/O RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 3. RANGA REDDY S/O RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 4. SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 STANDS ABATED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.11.2024) 5. RAMA REDDY S/O APPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 6. ANASUYAMMA, W/O RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. PARVATHAMMA W/O RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. BHARATHAMMA, W/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 9. RAMALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 10. RADHAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O GANDAMVARIPALLI VILLAGE BILLUR POST, PATHAPALYA HOBLI BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R5 TO R10) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN CRL.A.NO.22/2023 DATED 22.03.2024 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.96/2016 DATED 15.04.2023 OR OTHERWISE CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PRAYER MADE IN THE COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision petition is filed by the complainant against the acquittal order and also the confirmation order passed by this First Appellate Court. 3. The main defense of the revision petitioner’s counsel that an application was filed before the First Appellate Court to recall the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the said application came to be dismissed in coming to the conclusion that no material is placed before the Trial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 Court that for having filed such an application and without filing such an application, question of considering the application before the First Appellate Court under Section 311 does not arise. The counsel would vehemently contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the witnesses who have deposed before the Trial Court with regard to the incident is concerned and also contend that counter case also registered and in counter case also acquittal order has been passed. The Trial Court fails to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the Doctor who has been examined as P.W.5. The Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the doctor evidence. Apart from that the First Appellate Court also committed an error in not appreciating the same in a proper prospective and committed an error and hence it requires interference. 4. Per Contra, the counsel for respondent/accused would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not committed any in appreciating material available on record and witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the interested - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 witnesses and also Court has to take note of the circumstances under which incident was taken place unless the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborates each other, question of interference does not arise. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court also taken note of material available on record and in the absence of any cogent evidence, rightly acquitted and also reason was given that injuries alleged are not completely tallied with the injuries in which the doctor has treated and hence Trial Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and First Appellate Court also having discussed the same even when the weapon which was seized is not the same weapon and both the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not identified the same and they said that the weapon used was different and the reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also while rejecting the application filed under section 311 taken note of no such applications are filed before the Trial Court and consideration does not arise. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader at this juncture submits the revision is not maintainable in view of non-arraying the State as party to the proceedings. The counsel would submits that in the appeal also the not made the State as party and hence direction may be given to make the State as party to the proceedings. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused persons for the charges leveled against them and First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the acquittal and whether it requires interference? 2) Whether the learned High Court Government Pleader makes out a case to make the State as party to the proceedings? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 3) What Order? 7. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and also considering the material on record, no doubt charge sheet is filed against the accused persons by the State under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 448 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. It is also important to note that the Trial Court also while answering the charges leveled against the accused persons taken note of all these offences and comes to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the charges and also comes to the conclusion that alleged injuries shown in the wound certificate and also the evidence of the Doctor as well as the injured witnesses contrary to each other and the same not corroborates each other. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that no application was filed for recalling of P.W.1 and P.W.2 before the Trial Court and only an application is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 when the evidence available on record particularly the wound certificate as well as the evidence which are contrary to each other and also both P.W.1 and P.W.2 categorically says that after the incident the accused persons have thrown the club at the spot, but the club which was produced before the Court are different and they themselves says before the Court that that it is not the club which was used for assault and also categorically says that assault made with the club was different and the same was bigger than the club which was seized and hence, taking into note of the contra evidence, since P.W.1 says that she was assaulted on her head and also on her back. 8. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brought to notice of this Court only injury is found on the scalp and no injuries on the back as well as on the leg as deposed and these are the contradictions which are found and when such being the case, no doubt case and counter cases are registered, but in the case on hand only P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposes the same and no - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 other eye witnesses and independent witnesses have been examined and when the evidence of complainant not credible and lot of contradictions are found particularly with regard to the weapon which was used for assault also different according to them. When such materials were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts with regard to coming to a conclusion that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is not legal and suffers from any perversity and considering the material on record, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with findings of the Trial Court and in the absence of any perversity and order is not legal and hence, I answer the point No.1 as Negative. 9. The point No.2 is concerned that is with regard to ground urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader, though the State is not a party to the revision petition and having perused the record also, both before the First Appellate Court as well as before this Court the State is not made as party. Admittedly, the fact reveals - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 that the complaint was given, the case and counter case were registered. The State was complainant in the case though in the revision petition, de facto complainant filed complaiant but the fact is that the State is not made as party before the First Appellate Court and also not made as party before this Court. In a revision petition also having perused the material on record, no material is found to comes to a conclusion of this Court can exercise the revision jurisdiction and if that Courts below comes to such a conclusion that finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court not legal and perversity, then this Court would have directed the revision petitioner to make the State as party to remand the matter for fresh consideration and now only on the ground of technicality this Court cannot direct the revision petitioner to make the State as party. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. Hence, I answer the point No.2 as Negative. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3700 CRL.RP No. 626 of 2024 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53