SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 48322

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI LAKSHMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 7357/2022



- 1 -

CRL.P No. 7357 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7357 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI LAKSHMAN

S/O SRI GANGAIAH

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

2.

SRI MANJUNATHA

S/O LAKSHMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

3.

SRI VISHWANATH @ VISHWA

S/O SRI LAKSHMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

4.

SRI GANGARAJU @ RAJASHEKAR

S/O LATE SRI MUNIHONNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

5.

SMT. HEMALATHA

W/O SRI RAJASHEKAR

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

6.

SMT. RATHNAMMA

W/O SRI LAKSHMANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT MODALAKOTE VILLAGE

Digitally signed by

PADMAVATHI B K

Location: HIGH COURT

OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 7357 of 2022

KASABA HOBLI

NELAMANGALA TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

KARNATAKA - 562 123

&PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION

REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU - 560001

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

21.06.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN

SPL.C.NO.17/2016

IN

REJECTING

THE

APPLICATION

DATED 21.06.2022 FILED BY THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS

U/S 311 OF CR.P.C., 1973 SEEKING TO RECALL THE

ORDER DATED 08.04.2022 SO AS TO CROSS-EXAMINE

THE PW-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS

LIST, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

CRL.P No. 7357 of 2022

ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question

an

order

dated

21.06.2022

passed

in

Spl.C.No.17/2016 rejecting the application filed by the

petitioners under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall

of PW.3 for cross-examination.

2.

Heard

Sri.

Jayaraj

D.B.,

learned

counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned

HCGP, appearing for the respondent.

3.

Brief facts that leads the petitioners to this

Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the

pleadings, are as follows:

On 14.10.2018, one Smt. Kamala registers a

complaint before the jurisdictional police, which becomes a

crime in Crime No.397/2015 for offences punishable under

Sections 143, 448, 323, 324, 506, 149 of the IPC and

Sections 3(1), (1) and (11) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

- 4 -

CRL.P No. 7357 of 2022

3.1. The proceedings have since then gone on

before the Special Court. The issue is not with regard to

merit of the matter. The petitioners in the course of the

trial on 08.04.2022 file an application under Section 231 of

the Cr.P.C. to defer the cross-examination of PW.3. No

order was passed on the said application and the cross-

examination of PW.3 was taken as 'nil' on that ground that

the petitioners file an application under Section 311 of the

Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW.3 for cross-examination, as

she has not been cross-examined at all, in the light of her

cross-examination being taken as 'nil'. The concerned

Court, by its order dated 21.06.2022, rejects the

application on the ground that PW.3 is 80 years old and

she is unable to stand properly. Therefore, the cross-

examination is not allowed. It is this order that is called in

question by the petitioners in the subject petition.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the cross-examination of PW.3 is imperative

- 5 -

CRL.P No. 7357 of 2022

in the light of the allegation so made, as the offences

punishable are grave in nature. In the application, the

petitioners have narrated in detail as to why cross-

examination of PW.3 was necessary.

5.

Learned HCGP would however submit that since

PW.3 is 80 years old and she cannot be repeatedly called

for cross-examination, the petition be dismissed affirming

the order passed by the concerned Court.

6.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top