Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30801 (KAR)

RAGHU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/1432/2016 · 2025-02-10

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1432 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. RAGHU S/O RAJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT SAGANIPURA VILLAGE, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK-571072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKMAGALURU P.S.,CHIKMAGALUR, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMGALURU IN C.C.NO.126/2013 DATED 15.07.2014 AND THE SAME BEING CONFIRMED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKAMGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.87/2014 DATED 26.07.2016 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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 respondent. 2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the Trial Court that on 24.10.2012 at 8.30 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Chikkamangaluru Police Station accused gave the chit to CW2 and hence CW1 gave the complaint that he was forcing her to love him and hence invoked the offence punishable under Section 341 and invoked Section 504 for using a filthy language and invoked Section 506 for causing of threat and invoked Section 509 for asking her to make a phone call and demoralized her. In order to prove the case of prosecution, father of the girl has been examined as PW1, and PW2 is Mahazar witness, PW3 is spot mahazar witness and PW4 is the victim and PW5 is the grand father of the victim and PW6 is the I.O and relying upon this evidence and also the document Ex.P1 to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 Ex.P6, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 341, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC and the same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in the Crl.A.No.87/2014. The First Appellate Court having considered the material on record, re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel before this Court is that both the Courts fails to analyze the legal evidence available on record and there is no eye witnesses to the alleged offences and no independent witnesses. The PW1 and PW2 are the parents and I.O has not conducted proper investigation and no seizure of Ex.P2 that is alleged letter and Ex.P5 also not the authenticated document and the same is in respect of call details. The I.O also not sent the Ex.P2 to the FSL for confirming the hand writing of the accused and even inspite of all these lacunas in the prosecution, Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner. The First Appellate Court also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 not applied its mind and confirmed the same and it requires interference of this Court. 4. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for respondent-State would contend that PW4 evidence is very clear with regard to the wrongful restraint and also abusing her and causing life threat demoralizing the PW4 and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW4 to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution and so also the PW1 and PW2 spoken about the very conduct of the petitioner and I.O also conducted the investigation. The Ex.P5 also discloses the call made by the petitioner. The counsel also would vehemently contend that letter which was given by the petitioner is also marked as Ex.P2 and all these materials have been considered by the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court. Hence, it does not requires any interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent and also reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as First - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 Appellate Court the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner in the absence of any legal evidence and whether it requires interference of this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction? 2) What Order? 6. Having heard the counsels for respective parties and also on perusal of material available on record, the case of the prosecution that on particular date the petitioner went and gave the letter marked at Ex.P2 and also he used to make call and insisting her to call him and harassing her, abused her and also caused life threat and committed the offences. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The witnesses PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the victim girl and victim also examined as PW4 and it is the case of the PW3 that Police have conducted the mahazar and PW5 is the grand father and identified the accused that he has seen the accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 and he had threatened the PW4 if she brings to the notice of anyone about the act of the accused that he would pour the acid. The main witness is PW4 and no doubt she was aged about 14 years and she says that the accused was coming in the auto rickshaw along with his friends and makes an attempt to talk to her and also cause the threat that he would send the boys and caused life threat to parents. On perusal of the evidence of PW4 is the victim and she claims that she brought to the notice of this conduct of the accused to the parents and also the grand father. It is suggested that he used supply the milk and she admits that while giving the said chit, he came alone in the auto rickshaw and the same was witnessed by the neighbor of grand father Siddappa and on perusal of evidence of Siddappa, he is only mahazar witness and he has not spoken anything about he has witnessed the incident of giving of chit to the victim girl. 7. It is also important to note that Ex.P2 is marked and the same is not seized by drawing any mahazar and the same is admitted by PW6, however, the said document - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 is marked. In the cross-examination of the PW6-I.O, he categorically says that he had obtained the call list from the S.P office and there is no any endorsement or any authentication that the same was obtained from the S.P office and also not taken any details of mobile which was used for making the call and also he did not send the Ex.P2 for handwriting expert for confirming the handwriting, whether it belongs to the accused and there are lapses on the part of the investigation conducting the case and nothing was done by the PW6-I.O in order to bring home of this petitioner and only on the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are the interested witnesses that is PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the PW4 and so also PW3 is not an eye witness and there is no eye witnesses though prosecution relies upon the PW5 who is the grand father and PW1, PW2 and PW5 are the relative witnesses and though PW3 is examined he is not the eye witness and he is only mahazar witness. I have already pointed out that victim though says that incident of giving chit was witnessed by PW3 and he has not spoken anything about - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 the same. The PW5 also speaks about causing of threat. The PW5 also admits that at the time of giving of the said chit by the accused to the grand daughter, he did not witness any of the persons at the spot and also he did not make any complaint on the very same day and also he admits that Police Station is at the distance of 2 Kms and these are the evidence and admissions are also not considered by the Trial Court and Trial Court fails to appreciate the evidence of PW4 and PW6 in a proper perspective. The PW6 not done anything except registration of the case. When there is no legal evidence before the Court, both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of the PW4 and PW6 and also the document Ex.P2 as well as Ex.P5 are not the authenticated document and Trial Court without any authentication also marked the document of Ex.P5 and hence committed an error in convicting and sentencing and also confirming the same by the First Appellate Court and when there is no legal evidence before the Court, the Court can exercise the revisional powers - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5946 CRL.RP No. 1432 of 2016 and when the order suffers from legality and correctness, Court can interfere. Hence, I answer point as ‘Affirmative’. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order of the Trial Court in C.C.No.126/2013 dated 15.07.2014 and First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.87/2014 dated 26.07.2016 is set-aside and petitioner is acquitted. iii) Bail bonds are cancelled and if any fine amount is deposited, ordered to return the same in favour of the revision petitioner on proper identification. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75