Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
BUDIHAL R.B., J.
H.O. Chandrashekar - Petitioner
Vs.
The State By the Sub-Inspector of Police Thirthahalli - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1572 of 2010
Decided On : 01-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Sri. N.K. Ramesh
For the Respondent: Sri. K. Nageshwarappa
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the presence of civil and criminal disputes, to avoid false implication.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Criminal Law - IPC Section 326, 504 - The court examined the evidence and found inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case. It noted the presence of civil and criminal disputes between the parties, leading to the possibility of false implication. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.1, challenged the judgment and order of conviction for offences under IPC Section 326 and 504. The case involved a dispute over land division and an alleged assault on the complainant by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, noted the presence of civil and criminal disputes between the parties, and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the accused should be acquitted.
Issues: Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, presence of civil and criminal disputes, and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, considering the presence of disputes between the parties and the possibility of false implication.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the accused No.1 was acquitted of the offences. The bail bonds were cancelled, and the fine amount, if deposited, was to be refunded to the accused.
This is the revision petition filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 26/27.05.2010 passed by the C.J. (Jr. Dn.) JMFC court at Tirthahalli in C.C. No. 731/2003 and also the judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court at Shivamogga, in Crl. A. No.49/2010.
2. By the judgment and order of conviction, the trial court convicting the revision petitioner accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 and 504 of the IPC and acquitted the said accused for the offence under Section 323. So also acquitted accused No.2 and 3 from all the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction the revision petitioner – accused No.1 preferred the criminal appeal and the First Appellate Court also after re-appreciating the materials dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner is before this court in this revision petition.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case that complainant, accused No.1 and one H.O. Shreekantha are the brothers and there has been a dispute among them in respect of division of the land bearing Sy. No.39 of Holekoppa Village, Tirthahalli Taluk, being their joint family property and there was an order to maintain status-quoin a civil suit filed by the complainant and not to install any pump-set in the pump-house in the said survey number land and not to pump the water by any of the parties. It is further alleged in the complaint Ex.P1 that on 20.02.2003 at about 5.30 PM, the revision petitioner herein along with accused No. 2 and 3 came to the said pump-house to install the pumpset and to draw the water from the river to the land of accused No.1 and at that time, when the complainant objected to install the pump-set stating that there is a court order to maintain status quo and being enraged by this, the accused No.1 abused the complainant with vulgur words, “XXXXXXX” and assaulted on his left hand thumb, due to which the bone of the thumb was broken at its base and accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold of him and fisted on him by hands and when he cried, one H.M. Raveendra, H.T. Hareesha and H.T. Krishmamurthy came and pacified the scuffle and hence the complainant requested the police to take action against the accused persons. On the basis of said complaint, the I.O. conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the said offences.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses and produced the documents at Ex. P1 to P5 and one material object MO1 got marked. On the side of the defence, no witness examined, nor any documents were produced.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent State.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner during the course of arguments made the submission that looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no satisfactory and acceptable material produced by the prosecution to prove its case. He submitted that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of complainant PW1 is not worth believable. He submitted that there are civil disputes between the brothers and stay orders were passed by the civil court. Even PW1 admitted during the course of his evidence that there were such disputes since 13 years between them. He also submitted that even with regards to seizure of MO1 the iron rod, the evidence produced by the prosecution witness is not acceptable and it also creates doubt whether really such material object was used in committing the said offence.
Hence it is his submission that inspite of these infirmities in the case of the prosecution the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have wrongly read the evidence both oral and documenta
