- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 659 OF 2022 BETWEEN: THE STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP) AND: SHIVAKUMAR T.S S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION THIMMANAHOSURU VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAY SHETTY B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN S.C. NO. 125/2019 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CRPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Though the matter was listed for Admission, at the consent of both the learned counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The State has preferred this revision petition against the order passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C by the respondent/accused No.2 in S.C.No.125/2019 dated 27.08.2020 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the discharge application and thereby discharged the respondent/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 332, 427, 152 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984. 3. Parties are referred to as per ranking before the trial Court. 4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 On 29.04.2016 at about 02:15 p.m. within the jurisdiction of Mandya Rural Police Station at Lokasara village, near 14th number V.C. Channel, the lineman of K.E.B. one Ningaraju, while repairing the transformer which was erected by the CHESCOM, all of a sudden the electricity passed in the transformer and due to the electric shock, the said lineman Ningappa succumbed at the spot. The CHESCOM officials i.e., the Assistant Engineer and Supervisor came to the spot; by that time, the nearby villagers of Panankanahalli, Lokasara, Kolakaranadoddi, Pura, Thaggahalli, T.Malligere, Huluvadi about 600-800 people gathered there and among them, accused Nos.1 to 53 formed an unlawful assembly and shouted slogans against the CHESCOM officials and committed rioting and caused fear to CWs.40 and 41 and thereafter, the PSI-CW.53 came to the spot along with her staffs to the spot. At that time, the accused person assaulted CW.41 the officer of the CHESCOM and pelted stones on the Police jeep, damaged 4 Government vehicles and other vehicles, thereby caused loss. Further, due to their act, CWs.7 and 8 sustained injuries. It is stated that, due to the act of the accused, there was a damage to the public properties to the extent of Rs.72,727/-. As such, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 based on the suo moto complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandya Sub-Division, an FIR came to be registered against 28 persons in Crime No.317/2016 dated 29.04.2016 by the Mandya Rural Police Station. After completion of the investigation, the said Police laid the charge sheet against 53 persons including the present respondent by arraying him as accused No.2 before the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after securing the presence of the accused took cognizance of the offences and posted the case for framing of charge. In the meantime, the respondent/accused No.2 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C for discharging him from the offences he has charged. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the said application and discharged the respondent/accused No.1 for the offences alleged against him. The said order is challenged by the State in this revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 6. I have heard the learned HCGP Sri Rahul Rai K., for the petitioner so also Sri Vijay Shetty B., learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned HCGP primarily contended that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while allowing the discharge application filed by the respondent/accused, albeit the prosecution has placed sufficient materials and cited as many as 55 witnesses along with the documents. The statement of CW.53 one Bhavitha N.M., the women PSI who is an eyewitness to the incident, stated with respect to the involvement of the respondent/accused No.2 in the incident. In such circumstances, without conducting a detailed trail, the learned Sessions Judge hastily discharged the respondent/accused No.2 from the charges. Hence, he submits that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and prays to allow the revision petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused No.2 contended that, on perusal of the complaint averments it depicts that CW.53 the women PSI informed the complainant-Dy.S.P about the incident. According - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 to the complainant and CW.53, she has witnessed the incident and recorded the video clip of the incident in her mobile phone. According to her, at the time of incident, the respondent/accused No.2 was very much present in the spot. However, on perusal of the mahazar drawn by the Police dated 06.07.2016 by identifying the accused who were participated in the incident through video recording, the Police were totally failed to identify the respondent/accused No.2 and this accused was not in the scene of incident at that point of time. He further contended that, the respondent/accused No.2 being an Advocate while proceeding near the said area in his motor bike at about 04:00 p.m., the Dy.S.P assaulted him and as such, he got admitted in the Hospital at about 04:30 p.m. The said aspect was clearly forthcoming in the medical certificate/registry. In such circumstances, the respondent/accused No.2 has been falsely implicated in the crime by the complainant/Police. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly discharged the accused from the offences he charged. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 9. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by both the parties so also perused the documents made available before me. 10. As could be seen from the record, according to the complainant, the alleged incident was caused on 29.04.2016 at about 02:15 p.m. and CW.53 one Bhavitha N.M., the women PSI was present at the scene of occurrence and she witnessed the incident. According to CW.53, there were as many as 50 accused persons and they assaulted her, other officials and the CHESCOM officials. Later, the said fact was informed by her to the DySP/complainant-CW.1. The complaint was lodged on the same day i.e., on 29.04.2016 at about 0:15 p.m. by the Dy.S.P based on the say of CW.53. In the said complaint, it is stated that the women PSI-CW.53 identified the respondent/accused No.2. Even CW.53 also stated similarly that she identified the respondent/accused No.2 and she recorded the video of entire incident in her mobile phone. However, on perusal of the mahazar dated 06.07.2016 drawn by the Police officials, they failed to identify the respondent/accused No.2 in the video clipping. Except the respondent/accused No.2, they identified other accused. In such circumstances, the statement of CW.53 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 the women PSI who is an eyewitness to the incident so also the averments in the complaint is totally contradictory to the mahazar dated 06.07.2016 drawn by the Police. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused No.2, the accused No.2 got admitted at MIMS Hospital, Mandya on 29.04.2016 at about 04:30 p.m. with a history of assault near Lokasara Canal. He admitted in the Hospital at about 04:45 p.m. Whereas, the complaint depicts that the incident caused at about 02:15 p.m. In such circumstances, there arise doubt in the mind of this Court about the participation of the respondent/accused No.2 in the alleged crime. On perusal of statement of other witnesses, their statement totally based on the say of CW.53 the women PSI. As discussed supra, though she has recorded the video clipping of the entire incident, she failed to identify the respondent/accused No.2 in the video clip. In such circumstances, her statement cannot be relied in respect of participation of the respondent/accused No.2 in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge while allowing the application and discharging the respondent/accused No.2, discussed the said aspect at length. I find no good grounds to interfere in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14887 CRL.RP No. 659 of 2022 impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, the petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. It is made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced by this order while proceeding in the trial against other accused. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9