- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29917 CRL.RP No. 1089 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1089 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI VENKATESH H P, S/O LATE PUTTA, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOORIKADU, HAKATTURU VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -574211 REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT SOWMYA R, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATE 02.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, MADIKERI, AND EXPUNGE THE EVIDENCE OF CW3 RAJESH S/O NARAYANA AGED 33 YEARS, A LABOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29917 CRL.RP No. 1089 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Office objections are overruled. 2. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate who declined to expunge the evidence of PW-3 who is named as CW.3. The application to expunge the evidence of the said PW-3 was filed by the accused on the premise that the person who is examined as PW-3 is not the witness named in the charge sheet. The prosecution has treated the witness hostile and cross-examined the witness. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner - accused that the evidence of PW.3 in the cross-examination has caused serious prejudice to the defence raised by the petitioner. Application is also filed on the premise that the person not named in the charge sheet cannot be examined as a prosecution witness. 4. It is further submitted that the Police who proceeded to serve the witness summons have endorsed stating that there is confusion as to the identity of the person - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29917 CRL.RP No. 1089 of 2025 named in the charge sheet and the person on whom witness summons is served. 5. It is also submitted that the Police could not serve the summons to P.W.3 on the premise that there is discrepancy in the name mentioned in the charge sheet and the person to whom summons is sought to be served. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Trial Court could not have examined P.W.3 as the person named as witness in the charge sheet as CW.3. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the application is rightly rejected. The person who is examined before the Court is the person named in the charge sheet. Minor discrepancy in the name of the witness is explained in the evidence and the evidence cannot be expunged. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute that the name of the person named in the charge sheet as CW.3 is slightly different from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29917 CRL.RP No. 1089 of 2025 the name of the person who is examined as PW.3. Accused has raised a contention that PW.3 is different from CW.3 and he has cross- examined PW.3 in this behalf. 9. Whether the persons are one and the same or not has to be considered at the time of trial. Merely because PW.3 is examined as if he is CW.3, does not mean that the accused is not entitled to raise all defence available at the time of final hearing. Thus, the question whether PW.3 and CW.3 are one and the same has to be considered at the time of final hearing by taking into consideration the entire materials placed on record. 10. With these observations, the Revision Petition is disposed of. 11. Contention relating to identity of PW.3 and CW.3 is kept open. This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of either of the parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7