Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI
H. Mallikarjunappa, S/o Late Hanumanthappa – Appellant
Versus
State By Srirampura Police, Hosadurga Taluk – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by Spl. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.no.24/2016 confirming judgment dated 21.03.2016 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, in CC no.294/2015, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Manu Shankar S.S., learned counsel for petitioners submitted, this revision petition is by accused no.1 and 2, challenging concurrent erroneous findings leading to conviction of above accused for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 447, 504 and 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (‘ IPC ’, of short).
3. It was submitted, as per prosecution case, at 11.30 a.m. on 18.12.2014 victim was working in house list no.95 in Sirigondanahalli village of Hosadurga Taluk, when accused arrived there and began quarreling with complainant abusing him in foul language. At that time, accused no.1 pushed victim to ground and assaulted him with club, while accused no.2 to 4 assaulted her with their hands and legs and tried to outrage her modesty and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 447 , 323, 324, 354, 504 read with 34 of IPC and complaint was filed at 8:00 pm on 19.12.2014. S
Credibility of injured eyewitnesses is paramount; their testimony cannot be disregarded solely due to relationships with the complainant. Minor inconsistencies do not negate the prosecution's case.
The court ruled that in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or undue delays create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
The credibility of injured witnesses is significant and their testimonies cannot be dismissed solely due to their relationship with victims, supported by corroborative evidence.
Conviction on minor charges is unsustainable when major allegations, intertwined with minor ones, are disbelieved due to witness inconsistencies and unexplained delays in prosecution.
The sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in proving the prosecution case, the impact of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity.
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
