Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28734 (KAR)

SRI YASHAWANTHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/798/2020 · 2025-01-23

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.798 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI YASHAWANTHA, S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGEDA BOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANTHARASANTE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BEECHANAHALLI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 31.01.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HEGGADADEVANAHA KOTE IN C.C.NO.840/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 06.10.2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.66/2020 -CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- FOR THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 448 OF IPC, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 DAYS, FURTHER TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.4,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 354 OF IPC, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 20 DAYS AND TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 MONTH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 5 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that this petitioner who is the owner of the premises in which the victim was a tenant barged into the house of the complainant on 16.02.2013 at 2.00 p.m. when the husband of the complainant was not in the house. The petitioner asked for water and when the complainant went inside the house to get the water, at that time he followed her and he held her from backside and outraged the modesty of a woman and an attempt was made to commit the rape and when making - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 an attempt the nighty of the P.W.1 was torn. At that time, P.W.2 came inside the house and noticed the same and immediately P.W.2 brought P.W.3 and on the arrival of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the petitioner left the house. The complainant lodged the complaint and case was registered and investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC since an attempt was made to cause life threat by using towel on the neck of the complainant. The accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and hence trial was conducted and the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 to P.W.10 and marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6(a). P.W.3 turned hostile and P.W.4 is the husband of P.W.1. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and considering M.O.1 to M.O.3 which were marked i.e., torn nighty, towel and red colour broken bangles, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 year with fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the material available on record, in paragraph No.28 comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 is the victim housewife at the time of the incident and also made an observation that ordinarily a woman by making false allegation of acts committed against her would not put her character at stake. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. P.W.2 – eye witness to the alleged incident supported the case of the prosecution that the accused committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of the complainant and outraged modesty of the complainant by dragging her and tore her clothes and made her to fell down on the ground and there was no reason for them to speak a lie had they been inimical they could have exaggerated the fact but they have stated what they have witnessed at the time of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 incident. The Appellate Court also taken note of that there was no enmity between the complainant and the accused at the time of the incident though suggestion was made that the accused was objecting the persons who were coming to the house of the complainant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error and miserably failed to appreciate the charges leveled against the petitioner and contend that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim is tenant and landlord and there was a dispute between them with regard to vacating the leased house. In that background, both the Courts ought to have considered the material on record, but not appreciated the same in proper perspective. In fact, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution and P.W.2 is a relative witness and the alleged eye-witness P.W.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 doctor as per Ex.P.5 deposes that there are no external injuries on the body of P.W.1. When the medical evidence not supports the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not to have accepted the case of the prosecution and hence it requires interference of this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would contend that P.W.1 is the victim and the evidence of P.W.1 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.2. Apart from that, M.O.1 to M.O.3, which have been seized speaks about the incident and nighty was torn and the same is marked as M.O.1. M.O.2 is the towel and M.O.3 are the bangles which have been damaged during the course of incident. The evidence of P.W.2 is consistent with the evidence of P.W.1 and the same has been considered by both the Courts. The scope of revision is very limited and only if any perversity is found in the findings of the Trial Court, then only this Court can interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also having taken note of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner and whether the Appellate Court has committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court and whether it - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident was taken place on 16.02.2013 at 2.00 p.m. The case of the victim P.W.1 is that when she was alone at home, the accused came to the house and asked her about her husband and when she replied that her husband is not in the house, he asked her to give water and when she went inside, he followed her and held her from the backside. When she resisted, her cloth was torn i.e., nighty and when she was made to fell on the ground, her bangles were damaged and in the meanwhile, P.W.2 came to the house and witnessed the incident and immediately she called P.W.3 and the accused left the house. The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by the prosecution witness P.W.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the detailed cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Having perused the same, the evidence of P.W.2 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 and though some minor discrepancies are found, the same cannot be a ground to interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The learned - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 counsel brought to the notice of this Court the wound certificate Ex.P.5 as well as the evidence of P.W.7 doctor. No doubt, on perusal of the wound certificate, no injuries are found on P.W.1 and the case of the prosecution is that when a attempt was made, at that time P.W.2 came to the house of P.W.1. The Court has to take note of not only the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, but also other circumstantial material placed before the Court i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.3. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that, P.W.3, according to the prosecution has turned hostile and the evidence of P.W.2 is an interested witness and the said contention cannot be accepted. No doubt, P.W.2 is the relative of P.W.1 and at the same time, the Court has to take note of whether there was any animosity between P.W.1 and the accused and there is no such animosity between them. The fact is that the accused is the owner of the premises and P.W.1 took the premises on lease in the month of October and the incident was taken place in the month of February itself. The very ground urged in the petition that there was a ill-will between them with regard to vacating of the premises cannot be accepted and no such attempt was made to get P.W.1 vacated from the house and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the animosity is concerned. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Trial Court while convicting the accused given the reason that the evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. The Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that no woman will come forward to depose before the Court when her modesty is at stake. When the allegation of outraging the modesty of a woman is alleged, the same is discussed in paragraph No.28 of the order of the Appellate Court and a detailed discussion was made with regard to whether the victim can speak a lie when there was no animosity between them and appreciated the material on record and hence I do not find any ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE v. SANJIV BHALLA reported in (2015) 13 SCC 444, exercising the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.9 of the judgment, wherein discussion was made with regard to challenge was made for invoking of Probation of Offenders Act in a case of invoking of an offence under Sections 120B and 420 of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 IPC. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.12, wherein discussion was made that every accused person need not be detained, arrested and imprisoned- liberty is precious and must not be curtailed unless there are good reasons to do so. In paragraph No.15, the Apex Court taken note that the Apex Court in the case of Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh and others held that extending the benefit of probation to first time offenders is generally not inappropriate. The humanizing principle was extended even to a conviction under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC in State of Karnataka v. Muddappa, in which case the benefit of release on probation was granted to the convict. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.26, wherein discussion was made with regard to exercising of Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was already in custody for a period of one month and the same may be set off and he may be enlarged invoking the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. In the reported case the offence invoked is under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and in the case on hand, it is an - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 offence against a woman outraging the modesty of a woman when the husband was not in the house and the same cannot be extended. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that minimum sentence was imposed by the Trial Court i.e., one year and not imposed any maximum sentence and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 11. No doubt, with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, it is a case with regard to invoking of Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.9, 12 and 15 of the said judgment. No doubt, it is held that every accused person need not be detained, arrested and imprisoned- liberty is precious and must not be curtailed unless there are good reasons to do so. Having considered the said principle also, the Court has to take note of the factual aspects of each case while invoking the Probation of Offenders Act. 12. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that in the absence of the husband of the complainant, the petitioner trespassed the house of the complainant at 2.00 p.m. and asked the victim for water and when the complainant went inside the house, he held her from the backside. When she resisted, her - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 cloth was torn and the same is evident from M.O.1 and she was made to fell on the ground and at that time her bangles were damaged and the damaged bangles were seized and marked as M.O.3. Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.2 is clear that she witnessed the incident. When such material is available on record, when the offence is outraging the modesty of a woman, the question of invoking the Probation of Offenders Act, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not arise. Hence, taking note of the factual aspects of the case, minimum sentence of one year is imposed. The provision of Section 354 of IPC subsequent to the amendment with effect from 03.02.2013 is clear that shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. The penal provision is amended with effect from 03.02.2013 and the incident was taken place on 16.02.2013 subsequent to the amendment. The punishment imposed is one year and the same also commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner even to reduce the sentence as well as to invoke the Probation of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2860 CRL.RP No. 798 of 2020 Offenders Act to release him. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the negative. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54