Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anil B. Katti, J.
Rajmal Hastimal Ganna – Appellant
Versus
Vimal Moolchand Bafana – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 100146 of 2015
Decided On : 21-04-2023
REMAND - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 341, 342, 363, 324, 149 of IPC; Sections 246(4), 246(5), 313 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the procedural requirements under Sections 246 and 313 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity for proper questioning of the accused and the language used during such questioning. The court found that the First Appellate Court's remand was based on perceived prejudices that were not substantiated, leading to the conclusion that the Trial Court's procedures were adequate. The court ultimately decided to remand the case back to the First Appellate Court for a merits-based review.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, accused Nos. 1 to 6, were convicted by the Trial Court for various offences under the IPC following an incident where they allegedly assaulted the complainant. The First Appellate Court set aside the conviction based on procedural issues regarding the recording of the accused's statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and remanded the case for fresh proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Appellate Court's reasoning for remanding the case was flawed, particularly regarding the language used during the recording of statements and the lack of specific identification of prejudicial evidence. The court determined that the Trial Court had followed proper procedures and that the First Appellate Court had not adequately addressed the merits of the case.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court's remand order was justified based on the alleged procedural errors in the Trial Court's handling of the accused's statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the First Appellate Court's findings regarding the language of the statements and the formulation of questions were not legally sustainable, as the accused had not raised any objections during the trial regarding their understanding of the language used.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed, the remand order of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Court for a merits-based decision.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 6 feeling aggrieved by judgment of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Dharwad in Crl.A.No.56/2012, dtd. 13/3/2015, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of respondent-complainant can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused are relatives of complainant's wife-Seema and they were dissatisfied with their marriage and as such, they have developed hostility against complainant. On 9/11/2003 complainant and his friend-Raju Alakuntki were going in a motorcycle bearing No.KA-25G/1970 from Hubballi to Bankapur via Charmatti circle, when they reached at the said spot at about 7.45 p.m. accused by forming unlawful assembly came in TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No. K.A 25-M-2557 and abused the complainant and his friend in filthy language and thereafter, took the complainant in their vehicle, further they assaulted and threw him near railway track and threatened to kill him.
4. On these allegations, case was registered in Crime No.165/2003 of Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 341, 342, 363, 324 R/w. Sec. 149 of IPC. Investigation officer on completion of investigation filed B report which was objected by complainant and filed objections to B report. Thereafter, Court took cognizance and registered case in CC.No.710/2005 and issued summons to accused.
5. In response to summons accused appeared before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after being prima facie stratified, has framed charges against all accused for the aforesaid offences. Complainant in order to prove his case relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. Accused denied all incriminating material evidence appearing against them during the course of 313 statement and laid no any evidence. The Trial Court on hearing both sides and on appreciation of evidence, convicted all the accused for the aforesaid offences.
6. Accused being dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence challenged the same before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.56/2012. The First Appellate Court by its judgment dtd. 13/3/2015 set aside judgment of the Trial Court holding that recording of 313 of Cr.P.C. statement is not in accordance with law, which has caused prejudice to accused and remanded matter to the Trial Court for proceeding afresh from the stage of recording statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
7. Revision petitioner feeling aggrieved by remand order passed by the First Appellate Court without setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court preferred this revision petition contending that Trial Court has only examined issue of statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. and it ought to have examined evidence on record to acquit all the accused from the charges leveled against them. The entire trial itself is vitiated for noncompliance of Ss. 246(4) and 246(5) of Cr.P.C., since no opportunity was given for cross examination of PWs.2 and 3. The witnesses examined by complainant are not that witnesses referred in the protest petition and evidence of PWs. 2 and 4 cannot be relied. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set aside judgment of both Courts below, consequently to acquit all accused from the charges leveled against them.
8. In response to notice respondent-complainant appeared before court.
9. Heard arguments of both sides.
10. On careful perusal of records of the Trial Court and judgment of the First Appellate Court, it would go to show that on the basis of complaint filed by respondent-complainant Sri. Vimal Moolchand Bafana criminal law was set into motion by registering case in Crime No.165/2003 of Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad fo
The court established that procedural compliance under Sections 246 and 313 of the Cr.P.C. is critical, but the failure to raise objections during trial regarding language or questioning does not aut....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC to allow them to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence....
Procedural lapses in recording victim statements do not invalidate prosecution if evidence sufficiently proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction of accused based on reliable testimonies of injured witnesses is valid, and the absence of independent witnesses does not undermine the prosecution's case.
Improperly recorded statements of accused under S.342 invalidated conviction, requiring remand for retrial.
Procedural errors in recording accused's statements under law can vitiate a trial, necessitating remand for proper adherence to ensure fair justice.
Procedural lapses in the recording of victim statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case if sufficient evidence independently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
