V (3! gwazz p.r,}'
IN '3'!-IE HIE-I CGWELT OF KARNATAKFL AT BANGELORE
Damn» THIS wan 36" may or JUNE 2003
BEFORE
Tim 2101?' 31:3 MR. JUSTICE K N
CRIMINAL REVISIO pmrxrxon no.17e1L2éc§ 7; _
BE'1'.'HEEN :
nnfissnm
510 naanuua
AGE: so YEARS
ecu: cconxz «max
RfQ'HAIHflmE VILLAGE ,
swamps TALUK Ann DISTRCTm"a_ _ ~ _M ,
.'¢ «' '*g.,V9E?ITIOflER
any sax nnunpaa 9 §AniaQn&$,,§r?{;2
smnmn .% % -%"a%%*.'
nspansnnrmn $2 mung: FOLICE, snxnoaa
. . . RESPONDET1'
;'t3Y.sa;<§x§aumLuUnmay M.G. 5293
" *rHis7¢fi:EInAL nmvxszuu pzwzwxqn IS FILEB
via 39? a £01 CR.P.C 33 run Anwocnmn FOR THE
,_',2E?ITION;n.9nAIING THAT THIS HDN'BLE 600%? um!
%f Bs,Em3A$ED TO SET ASIDE THE onnxa DT. 1?~9--c5
41.§hss3n 3? ram 9.9., FTC-II, SHIMGGA, IN
'.uaL.A.No.31/01 comrxnnaus THE ennsn DT.19-5~91
.;_ 'Ffi5SEfi BY was JHFC~II covmr, snmnen, IN cc
Tufxmm.47e4/97.
'rhia revision petition is craming on
hearing this day. the Caurt made the
follawing:
'?
0 R D E R
Thcsugh this revision petition ia li'§'t§d
for flinnl hearing today, even at 4
there is no representation on
potitiarmr. Therefore,
learn-ad public pxoaocutgr afiy iheard'.-".i. .i§'eicu$7éé'i
the lower Court records.
2. This rmrinian under
Sec. 39'? RIW; 4021. the accused
in c.c:. my; of aura - :1
snimegei; " 'A legality and
co1:rec&.§'§::sV af convictian and
aantegzge fiezxgaedv--- jtsyifitha laazrnad Magistrate,
co;1v'i'iE:t.i31q'i-- "" "&<:r:uaad for the offenses
Ssatioras 4:38 and 354 11%: and
to undergo simple impriaomaent
n'a__j::anth and 3 months reapectively. apart
fine. He has also: questioned than
and correctneaa of the Judgment
~ éélfdated. 1'?.9.2GD.5 passed by the Fast Track Court
- II Shimcga in C.r1.App-eal No.31/2001
%%§'%£"'3"'§ iaiffili-I Wfifilkffiixfifl 40 !.}4fl€)_"} §~éi?}§§-~! 'VKVSWNMVW «-If': I3éflr"3"\ unau "i-I\i\~«Il\~J2o.Iu\-In an i\Inl\1\-nu ........n
dismissing the said. appaaz. and upholding the
Judgement of aomriction arxd atentenca passed. by
the learned Magistrate ..
3. Tbs brief facta of the case am;
11.1.1997 at about 2.30 a.m. at *Ha1$§1§§ *
village cf ahimoga talukV.:'"whgn
Mnheslrmazci and hm: g1:a11i:1V
Sakkuhai were a1eepin{g~.,__ "in Hm; '.11V<:1:z&'~1§f' Ehe
aczcuamd by ramming thnAV11-1*.1Eug:11"*~-:31: tii'G--..t3!i:3atchBd
door of has: house :tI:Le'Es:aased inta
than up, dragged
he: sat f Ȥ:heV an intention to
asutraga gm: eriminal fierce
wi1e11x"#h¢ crind taut laudly, PW.2
- {?:I:i_;'.'ojoa and 1191.4 Jayarama, who
:i /'warn the naighhcrha-od came running
"-1fij:§«.___h-ax reisfiiie. On seeing them, the accused
hand and ran away from thfl place.
the mm. lodged. a. ccmplaint cm
'ff2a;3.1997, based on which the police
'rcgitstared the case against the accused and
"V
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as
neticxad above. Being aggrieved by the aid
Judgement at cotwiction, the accused fi1ar;i\¢n
appeal hefere the Sensation Judge
cu. Appeal No.31/2003.. The p1:a$.i.'i:h*.4_t:hafl.';aA:i}ciaéa'V
Judgamant dated 17 . 9 . 206$: dismi 2»,-one "said
appeal by uphoiiding V..V.,i,»_;fud9"§ttiea'ia.t of
ccnvictian and santonsfig learned
Hagiatrate. Brainy by these
Judgargiéiit 5 ;. ~ .17 iii Vihae: pres canted thi :3
twin i»$nVV'pati i
urged in this revision
there is inordinate delay of
2 days in lodging the cotwlaint and
":i§§.'ay in-self shows that it van a false
but, the courts below have not
i ' pcinaido zed this aspect in it 5 pzope:
peragaacztivo and that findings at tha courts
helm: are illegal and has xzelsulted in
%/
miscarriage of.' justice. as such thny are
liable 12:: has set: aside.
5. In the facta mad circmnatanqcéc-..:: V'
case, the paint: that a{3:'i:-s§«._
consideration is :
1.
Whether the courts 1sa;¢wuTj’2a§’2§§”‘
justitiaa in holdV;§_gé~.._t’hc uamma
guilty for t;AffEe1:;.cia’e£._’L’vyuwgishabla
U19 4:13 and any
6. Even hsfége iuhg it was
anguac§VV’6i5;”‘aff”»!§i1a Aégckiussad that the delay
in filing’. show that cowlaiut
fi1.ot,;i__ Ai2s “° a false tzaraplaint and
V”‘vths;v.;c’£=:>xuaA. t:h’c ‘ii*hble case of the prosecution
as such the accused is entitle
at acquittal. This argument has
“‘~.-«.._’__”-.béen “3§}:iou5ly considered by both the Courts
Both the ccmrta have noticed that in
complaint itself, certain amount of
explaxmtion hem been off erred by the
complainant, an to why the cxczruplarint came to
%/
evidenao at 1393.1, she has stated the raasan as
to why she cauld not fila the cornp1¢;’i;1t
icamediata 1y.
3. In a. case of.’ this
otfansaa against the woman,
urmarriad girla,
at reluctance an paL’iéi:’A.L.1_;’11a *<r'i'::i:"i§ma as
alto their parents incident
to the involva
the futux-i: V parents in such
circumataixéaaéi time to think;
calmly, it may attach
a stigma} the girl, which my
than way of her marital
..::'::["x–§;arafore, in a case of this
natfixgf} qn§:a: ':1-jaxmot craps-ct the victim or the
–.%_T&T’_;’:..,§-:1.one raiiativas of the victim to immediately
3:¢ than police statien and lodge a
‘ In caatena Gf decisions, the Apex
‘V””A».._ {i’ourt has held that in a. casa involving
affense against the wemen, delay in filing that
5/
1!}
an one hand and the accused an the other hand.
Therefcareg there is no reason for reje¢t-inc
I\.lӤ.i IflF*9. Euiffifl
the testimony of PEIL1. Trm avidenxxe
is <:orrob1:a!:ed by the mridence af . M
The evidence of 951.2 ta 4 ::”.”é§a<".i'«tgtz-.qot1i§'i*:__§!sf?aL :
whole corxoboxatos the _ avi&a_1:§.'c:§
material particulars. 4
are residing in E*'§:a'.1 is
nut: aerioualy V5},-*V."i_:':'_*..-1I3e<i. duxing
the areas to 4 have
canai st en'%:1.3f_." V evidence that
attar PW}. at the odd
hour. hvauaes and saw the
accuser; fffrom out of hm: house
g-eeifiq "" 'them, the accused leaving
running away from the place.
'I*r1a:'1:4g ig."'L:égh:so1uta1y, nothing in the cross
~.K,/..:':v'-'«._'§3K§1'EiIX§ti:~0B to doubt their testimony. It in
jfittggaatad to any of these witmsses that
was any kind of ill will between them
tha accused. P'iI.2 to 4 have no nicer to
gnzind against the accused. Thmrezfmre, there
§/