Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to correcting manifest errors of law or procedure, not to re-evaluate evidence.

DATED 16.11.2016 IN CRL.A.NO.59/2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.02.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA O R D E R Heard Sri Satyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 21-07-2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya, in Criminal Case No.2035 of 2013, which is confirmed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, dated 16-11-2016 in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2016.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The petitioner is the 'accused' and the respondent is the 'complainant- State'.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: On 23-08-2013, the complainant-PW.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P1 to the Basaralu Police Station, alleging that she was given in marriage to one Nagesh(PW.2), resident of Nanjegowdana Koppalu Village and her marriage was performed about 3 years ago and out of the wedlock, a female child was born. The accused is a resident of Bestaru Koppalu Village. He was following PW.1, teasing her, he used to watch with malafide intention (bad vision). Accused had personal interaction with her, despite her clear indication of disinterest and knowingly that, PW.1 is wife of PW.2. Hence, PW.1 informed said aspect to her husband Nagesh-PW.2. On 23-08-2013 at 2:00 p.m., while PWs.1 and 2 were working in their land, at that time, the accused came there and hence, PW.2 questioned the accused about his behaviour. The accused immediately took up a quarrel with PW.2, and abused him in filthy language, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and also told that he would tease his wife again and what else he would do? Thereafter, the accused assaulted PW.2 with his hands, pulled his T-shirt and also assaulted him with a wooden club-MO.1 on his left side of chest and knee joints and caused injuries. Therefore, PW.1 came to rescue of PW.2, pacified the quarrel, again the accused pulled her hands and saree thereby, outraged her modesty and also threatened PW.2 saying that he would eliminate him. Hence, PW.1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. Based on the complaint, the Basaralu police registered the case in Crime No.118/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 323, 354, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). This led to registration of F.I.R. and investigation.

5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 323, 354, 324 and 506 of IPC.

6. The trial Court examined in all seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7, got marked four documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and got marked two material objects as per MOs.1 and 2. Assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences charged against him. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2016 before the First Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not in accordance with law. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not applied the provisions of law in its proper perspective. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, claiming to be eyewitnesses to the inci