1 .
iliil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE M'I-{JUSTICE JAWAD RAH1':i\:/I
CRIMINAL REVISION pET1'r1<__)mNo.6/2'o1o«ii. '
BETWEEN:
Sri Murali.
Son of Gopalareddy,
Aged about 23 years.
Residing at No.25}, V H
Opposite to Pranav Bakery} ;
Begur Road, Hngasandra, "
Banga10re--56O O68.
Son of Piiiaredd.y;'_,i
Aged aboi_:..tV2L'3' .ye£ii*113._, _ ,
Residing at behinvd Aiswadigza Bar,
3"? Cross, Begui'V'l%GaAd,i _ ' '
Hongasandra, V ' "
Bangal.0re--"~5_60 O68. 4' ; =
Sri.Kantharaj*u""@
Sri.1.\/1§a'ri_ju.nath2i'. ~ V'
Son Roi' C;_e.pai.areddy}' " **** ii "
Aged 2;.boL1i. years.
LResiding-aid N'o.,25.i,
"Op"p.Qsit'e 1ft;..,P1'a:frii:¢;iv Bakeiy,
Begin' R0fa.d',~ Ongasandra.
Ban}ga10:f'e ---E360 O68.
V."Sri.G0palé1 Reddy,
_ §_".'3Q1'1 'Of Abbaiah Reddy,
' . Agediabout 52 years.
i Residing atN0.251,
...Opposi'{e to Pranav Bakery,
Begin' Road, Hongasandra.
Bangalore -- 560 068.
Sri.J anardhana.
Son of Bhomi Raddy.
Aged about 24 years.
QQVCV
Residing at N0248,
3" Cross,
Begur Road. Hongasandra.
Bangalore ~« 560 068.
6. S1'i.L0kesh Reddy @ Loki,
Son of Eate Purushothama Reddy.
Aged about 30 years.
Residing at N0253. I F1001'.
Opposite to Pranav Bakery.
Begur Road. I~{or1gasandra,
Bangallore W 560 068.
. . I;ij:":1:1i1QN£s§Rs
(By Sri.N.J.Rame's'h;.: Ag_1v.)' '
AND:
State offiarnataka, 'V
Represented by Lheéé " V _ ._ _
lnspftctor of Poiice. "
Madiwala P01iee";3_téI't7:dVn,V
Bar1ga10re_,___ "
" ....RESPONDENT
. {By sri;Raj§~ .sub_§4ah;'n.~1e1nya Bhat, HCGP]
This" e.1-1.R.p"; 'Ai.sV:i;i1ed:U/S.397 1"/w 401 of Cr.P.C. praying
F§0n'bA£e Coufimixiay be pieased to set aside the order
1T'i,._:f?;O09:Vp§;1ssed in S.C.N0.1178/2008 passed by the
P1'es'id§11g O'VfI"i'e.'e,j1r,VA'}rF"Vé1'st T1'ack C0urt~\/, Bangakore.
V' the fbil0w'i11g:
This C;'1.R.P. coming on for admission this day, the Court.
-3-
JUDGMENT
Petitioners who are arraigned accused in
S.C.No.1178/2008 on the file of the learned Judge. Fast_.7I_’1’ack
Court, Bangalore, are in 1’evision under Section
questioning’ the order of framing the charge against…t:hen1A. ~
2. The matter is listed for atdinissiciiiaftei’ _.not’ic_e to–:ltheg
State.
3. Contextual facts _Vreferer_1flce’l are: one
Ramachandra lodged 1’eport”at the _jtiriSdi.cti’i.Qnal police station
alleging that, the petitioners to 8) were
near Garvebhavi ;’Plall’ya’ in”._Hcnn’gasa:nd1*a’V Main Road, carrying
metal pipeV;.V_Ae.t/zussedvNollie in possession of the metal pipe. It
was carried *-in* a” manner and touched the
complainant… When he and his companion asked the accused to
m:e.tal_l:p’ipe in orderly inanner t.o avoid injury to others,
enraged With.”t1hl_atvAl.av!l”accused armed themselves with objects iike
V long {s’wo1’d_)’,’ chopper and at.t.acked the complainant. causing
H”:’:v’.,’.li4;l’t.1I:Y,–.”7ill1~~¢ deliberate intention to kill him. When the
lcoriipiainant tried to escape the assault, accused Nos.2 and 3
“chased him in ptirsuit. to kiii hini 2–md they were alreaciy armed
“~–with sword and knife. The otller accused joined with these
persons to ensure that the complainant and his companion shall
not escape. On the basis (Ji report, FIR came to be
-4-
registered for offeiiees punishable under Seet’ions 143. 147. 307
r/w 149 of the IPC.
4. The petitioners were arrested and during the cyottrse of
investigation, were admitted to bail. On filing of t.he_:fi’i”i’a.l
the jurisdictional Magistrate took eognizarice ar1d…eonifi1.i:tte_d its
Case to the Court of Sessions. thei;(:haifge’–Vf(:r ot’i’e1_1(:er.L_inAderA’
Section 307 of the IPC was excipusive}y”–¥ria~ble lit’ isl’noWl.F
registered in S.C.No.i178/2008l”and the” ..p’rease11ét: the
petitioners has been seeui’e’d.~.__ V l l
5. When the matter was ftoregarding charge,
the petitioners assei*tit?ely iasotgght to in t.he tirst
instance and -in theV.altie1*ria’ti};’eiy ‘pointed out to the Trial Court”
that the aiiegatioirt in’ e–ofir.plai11t make no case for raising a
_eha1’geppf.or” otferices ..g;fic’1<ar :53ect:ions 143, 147 or 307 of the IPC.
l'.'h€I order. the learned trial Judge rejected the
coriter'it;iOn"afiC1p_hasframed the charge against the petitioners for
V the offences_"indit:ated above. Assailing the order, they are in this
i tpetitliopn rai':'-zing following grounds:
it That the report Stlbl'11it.t€d in the first instailce and
registered as F IR did not elaborately reveal with the
overt acts of the petitioners thereby making it clear
that, there presence was doubtful.
W’
-5″
(ii) There was no allegation oi’ intention in the mind of
the petitioners to make any attempt. on the life of
CW1–comp1ainant or his companion.
(iii) There was no allegation to attract. the _
Sections 143 or 147 of the EPC.
6. The learned counsel elabora”t:ed7._o’n the”points”‘«sovl–.
canvassed and assertively contend.s:=i:hat,
the trial Court. was required to VA consideration the
material collected during V trial Court has
ignored the said material and police officers
had indicated in the provisions of
Sections 1431 been repeated in the
charge.
7. Secondly ._glhev..co1i’%.ends that, even if he accepts the
:,’:’al1egatit;–na in:t:he..compla’i’nt,v as true. it shows that. the incident.
was a_.relsul’t._of spa; of action with no pre~mediation or pre
Vplanning. He .sul;1n:1its that, in order to sustain a charge under
-i.l.l’_j’:..4S_ection l43_,A’torn1ation of unlawful assembly must. precede with
intention to commit the crime. Such allegations being
–._agt:iserit in the complaint. he submits that. the charge cannot be
__raised. He relies on the decision ofthe Apex Court. in the case of
STATE OF’ KARNATAKA Vs. MUNISWAMY AND OTHERS
reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699.
-6-
8. Per contra Sri Subrahmanya Bhat, learned Government
Pleader has opposed the petition and supports the impugned
order.
9. The petition undoubtedly is questioning the:
charge. It is not yet fully decided whetl-1yer.;
framing of charge is purely i11terloeutory.__na_t_u.1″e or-.is”a.meV11;abl:e®_
to revision. 1 therefore, leave that queestioii open. »Hcwé:;ef,”‘o’n its V
merits it is to be I10tiC€dvi”l7l§.}[. eoriipeleainléizit in his. first report
referred to attack by the aceuesed they were in
the company of aoggused *axsVse1*tiVe statement.
in the complaint were eight in
number and his Companion,
because. eornrylainlainyi’had::::’qt1est,ioned accused No.1 about
the manner in°’whic.h’V–_he=._was carrying iron rod risking life of
…..
A V .’_rhe whether the persons in the group were the
members of~”~u_nlawful assembly” or not?
_ _lO. ‘Fhot1gl1 learned counsel contends that. in order to
“‘1TE1lSV€r’C.-h.’-il1’g€ under Section 143 of the IPC, there must be Clear
‘:’31’:a.t.e1’ial to show that, the assembly of persons was {or
commission of crime. It is to be noi.i<.:e.d that. no doubt mere
assembly of persons may not constitute unlawful assembly. but
},{?z/
-7-
when the object of assembly becomes unlawful, is a decisive
factor. It is now well settled that, assembly of persons maynot
be unlawful in the inception, but when they share aincljiiidnlge
in overt acts with the object to commit a crime. th€’.4’lassen’1bly’ : S’
termed as unlawfule assembly. It has to inferred on’lyg§’ron:_i_’Vthe._V it
attending circumstances and the overt”‘:acts_’loi’ the a’c.c’used”‘*anlc{.:
no straight jacket formula can bel__v’p’~;:escrib’ed. ‘i_t”‘d.epends v S’
on the evidence of the pr0:secuiio1_1_,:liai,_t’h.ye ijraniing of
charge, it will wholly be 11fi’p.’r}3pa{ to examine
the material to findctit of the assembly
had shared V S
1.1. iritention in the minds of the
accused assembly would only be
noticed, when the Vevidence relating to the incident is before the
canrtot; be l”p1’ej–adged. Neither it can be said with an
af€ilrmatio_r1′-that’; there is no material nor it can be said there is
S n1ate1*iali’l’establishing the fact. Since the element of inference is
V7–.__always available in law, it cannot be said that, raising a charge
offence under Section 143 against the petitioners at this
__ junctu re is unsustainable.
12. The second aspect is about charge for offe.11ce under
Section 147 of the EPC. Since at this juncttlre su.1″ficient. material
to show that petitioners were armed with objects like sword and
ytev
_’i5r>cA.’;
igi
knife and being of an unlawful assembly. it attracts charge for
offence under Sect.ion 147 of the IPC.
13. The last. and the i1′}1]C)OI’l,.&l’lf aspect is. about the.
raised for an offence under Section 307 of the IPC-.’:._TlSie .
under t.his provision totally depends on the nature” ‘o:f_’vo\}e.1’t” acts
of the accused and their intention. It is._r1ot’Apecess_a’r3t’t:tilaftftheije
must be an injury t.o the life to a’?’t.1’a.ct the’~ing1’edierits ‘:tf_Se..£’tion
307 of the IPC. Therefore. the cor1t,ei’tt.ion of counsel
that the charge could be oI_1zl:j’ _undei* .Sec_’t:i.on 326 or 324. does
not appeal to me as,_a te11a3;il..e._groi.i.ndg the allegations
made against t11e3._pet:§itioVrievrs Section 307 of the
IPC. The trial. [Judge liéisSconsideredallegations in the coniplaint
t.o frame the Charge. detailed reasoning is necessary.
I am sat.isfied there i.S_SvittfI’i_Cif€’Ii1Vt allegations. which are enough to
chai’geffto’r—-an offence under Section 307 of the EPC.
on record makes out a prima facie case
for against the petitioner. I do not. find any
.4u1′.i'”l,1:il’111l’t’4$/..]Sgf1}.f’t)l’ otherwise in the inipugned order in raising
an offence under Sections 143. 147 and 307 of the
14. It is also needs to be observed that. the petitioners are
not seeking total. discharge. The contention is ‘that. the charge
tor offences under Section 143 and 307 is not proper. Their
ékfiiv
-9″
contention is, the charge Could be less than the said offence.
This itself shows that, the accused will not be prejudiced i.n___any
manner if they are put to trial, because the finding of
depend on the nature of evidence. The Sessions’ ‘
bestowed with sufficient power to scale: down the chaur;jeVV’i3;’_1’:sed._V it
on the evidence when he decides “=the,_iifia1.ti’re'”Qt”
committed by the petitioners.
Being of this View, 1» ‘-:’i1.1yv”Vi’II1«erit ifi”th’¢ petition
and hence the same is rejected ‘at theibstagelivcifadfnissinon itself.