Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 20098
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, J
SRI. RAVIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 450/2024
SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE; SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1
The court affirmed that at the discharge stage, contradictions in witness statements do not warrant discharge and the presence of material evidence justifies continuation of trial under IPC Section 307.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 504, 506, 324, 323 - Criminal revision petition challenging rejection of discharge application for accused - Trial Court found material evidence indicating intention to kill, based on witness statements and nature of injuries inflicted - No grounds established for discharge under Section 227, as contradictions in witness statements are matters for trial - Revisional jurisdiction not exercised. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Discharge Application - Scope - At the stage of considering a discharge application, the court should not conduct a mini-trial or roving inquiry; it must assess whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the trial. (Paras 4)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. This present criminal revision petition is filed questioning the rejection order passed by the Trial Court when an application was filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and other offences leveled against them.
3. The main contention of accused Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court is that there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and nature of injuries are also simple in nature and there are no material with regard to invoking of Section 307 of IPC. The said application was resisted before the Trial Court and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there are injuries by using screwdriver as well as club and specific allegation is made in the first information that the accused came with an intention to kill the injured, assaulted with screwdriver, small knife and club. The wound certificate of Venkataramaiah shows that he has sustained small clean cut wound over right scapula region and one stab over the cenebitices and Janardhan has sustained abrasion over the knee and contusion and cut wound over cenebitices. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 3 have not made out any grounds to discharge them for the offences invoked against them. The learned counsel would contend that when the offence under Section 307 of IPC is invoked, there must be material for the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
4. The offences invoked against the petitioners is punishable under Sections 504 , 506, 307, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC. If there are any contradictory statement in the statement of the witnesses, it can be considered as a defence and the same cannot be considered at the time of considering the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and the same is settled law. The Trial Court while rejecting the application comes to the conclusion that at the time of considering the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot conduct any roving inquiry. Whether the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of IPC attracts or not, is a matter of trial and the Court cannot conduct a mini trial while considering the discharge application. Hence, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court and the said grounds are only a defence and defence cannot be attributed while considering the discharge application and hence not a case for exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
- ORDER The revision petition is dismissed.
