Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.450 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. SRI SRINIVASA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
3. SMT. MANJAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT DASASARAKALLAHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572219 Digitally signed …PETITIONERS by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.
2. SRI JANARDHAN KUMAR, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O DASASARAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 219 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO.52/2022 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 OF CRPC AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR DISCHARGE UNDER SECTION 227 OF CRPC IN S.C.NO.52/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
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.
