Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
S. RACHAIAH, J.
Kalyani @ Kallappa Jakapure, S/o. Shivalingappa Jakapure - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Through Madan Hipparga P.S., Kalaburagi - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 200010 of 2019
Decided On : 07-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 326 and 504 - Criminal Appeal - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whether concurrent findings recorded by Courts below are sustainable - Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the said concurrent findings - High Court Government Pleader justifying the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below and submitted that, once the cognizable offence has been invoked and submitted the charge sheet and acted upon it, the legality of initiation of FIR cannot be challenged at the belated stage. (Para 7).
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner raised valid ground that, the registration of the FIR for non-cognizable offence is not permissible without obtaining the permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.4, only offences under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC have been invoked. Admittedly, both the offences are non-cognizable in nature and registration of the FIR appears to be contrary to Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., which is held to be illegal. Since the registration of FIR at the inception is held to be illegal, its consequential investigation conducted by the investigating officer and submitting the charge sheet, obviously, held to be vitiated. The question of law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that can be considered even in the revisional jurisdiction and there is no embargo to deal with it, notwithstanding the judgment being passed by the Courts below.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2014 in Criminal Case No.581/2009 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland and also its confirmation order dated 03.01.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.34/2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 504 OF Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is the resident of Darga Shiroor and he was doing motor winding work and it was his livelihood. It is stated in the complaint that on 19.07.2009 at about 4-00 p.m., when he was in his house, his wife had informed him that, the accused had scolded her, when she had been to bring firewood. After hearing the same, the complainant searched for the accused and he found that the accused was standing in front of the shop of one Rayappa Ghanti. The complainant went near the shop and asked the accused as to why he had scolded his wife. There was exchange of the words taken place between them and it was pacified at that time.
3. It is further alleged that on 20.07.2009, when the complainant had been to Aland to the hospital and came back to the village and was proceeding in front of hotel of Sri Rajendra S/o. Sirguppa Ghanti to go to his house, the accused restrained the complainant and started assaulting with stick on his right jaw, lips and caused bleeding injuries and also assaulted on the left wrist, right hand and back etc., at that time, Sri Shivanand and Ashok intervened and pacified the matter. After the incident, the complainant lodged a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet under Sections 324, 326 and 504 of IPC.
4. Heard Sri Ashok Mulage, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the concurrent findings recorded for conviction by both the Courts below is contrary to the facts and law. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
6. It is further submitted that the registration of the First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) for non-cognizable offences is held to be illegal. Mere invoking Section 326 of IPC after the investigation and submitted the charge sheet would not wipe out of the illegality committed by the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought to have considered these aspects and acted upon it.
7. It is further submitted that since the Courts below committed error in not considering the said aspect, the impugned judgment has been passed, which is erroneous and illegal and same is liable to be set aside. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the criminal revision petition.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader justifying the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below and submitted that, once the cognizable offence has been invoked and submitted the charge sheet and acted upon it, the legality of initiation of FIR cannot be challenged at the belated stage. The Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has committed an offence and convicted properly. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the concurrent findings recorded for conviction, the points which arise for my consideration are :
(i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are sustainable?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the said concurrent findings?
10. This Court being the Revisional Court for this case, has to verify legality, correctness or error of facts and law, if any, committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction.
11. The learne
SupremeToday
Point of law: Courts below committed error in not considering the said aspect, the impugned judgment has been passed, which is erroneous and illegal and same is liable to be set aside.
Inconsistencies in the evidence and failure to properly appreciate the material on record can lead to a manifest error of law, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Point of Law : Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a post office as the Magistrate has to apply his mind with regard to the fact as to whether the cas....
Cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act can only be taken on the complaint of the authorized officers mentioned in Section 55, and the complaint should be filed in consonance with....
Minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate a conviction under Section 324 IPC when the evidence is otherwise consistent.
Revisional courts should only interfere with lower court judgments in cases of clear perversity; otherwise, decisions regarding evidence are upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
