E Cr1.RP 2190f2G06 IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT EANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY BEFORE _ H' % THE HONTSLE MRJUSTECE A:$.PAca~:---:.é§P;:§éi3:: CRIMINAL REVISION PE'1*1T1Lé>N _ BETWEEN « " ' 1 « 1. Halappa S/0 h 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, T A R/0 Tattehaili Vfl1agV¢:,_" vv Bhadravat1:;i'Ta1ul;;' V' ' V 2. Chandrappa Sin V¢€mppé*%A " . ~ % 39 years, 09¢? Agxiculiwne, R] o Ta}-uk;~. PETITIONER/S . , 3,8. beshpanae, Adv.) *._(sr~i. sathish R. Gixai, Hes?) Tfie s£aLte RESPONDENT/S 'i'irfi1i'k . This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Secfion 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment 6:. order .d$.2.9.()ES passed by the Pr1.CiviI Judge (.Jr.E)n.) 3% JMF'C., Channagiri in C.C.No.364/99 3.; the judgment 8:; erder " dt.'?.1€).O6 paased by the Acid}. SJ, F'I'C~iI, Davangem in Cri.A.No.236/GS. 2 CILRP 2E90f2006 This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court, made the foilowing: ORDER
The petitioners have challenged their
sentence fix” the ofiimce under Sectiens 419
may held by the JMFC, Cha3mag’n’ af¢1d”co.n¢ firm-I fippéaj V’
befmt the Sessizms Judge, Davanagefg.’ A ‘T
2. The facts relevant 951″
as under: V. ' ' _ t 1 S will be zefenzing their rank befozt the of'conven.:icnce.
The 51$ “A<:;bused Nos.1 and 6 before the Trial
Iitfwisxoxz '2'?.12_-..1991 that the accused before the Trial
a.. éc~1_:1n:1on intention and in order to cheat the
to have committed the above Saki ofibnces
-and .A<:9::"1:::-3e£;i No.1 by impersonation had. put the LTM
uthe complainant on the sale (iced pertaxmn' ' g to
13 mcasming 3 acres of Kfianadakatte Village,
T ivhércas Accused Nos.2 to 5 identjficzd the LTM of the
U compkainant anti Accused No.6 knowing fully wail that a forged
decument is being cxecuteci got: it in his name. A complaint
B4
3 CILRP 2190/2006
filed in this. regard was regstercd by the Police =
completion of the investigation, charge sheet caifie
against Accused Nos. 1 to 6 befoxe the " .'
Dtxring the Trial, the p1'o$e_cution.
ané in their evidence got "the 1 to
13.31. The joint statemerflof by the
Trial Court. The accused denial and
did not plead Trial} Court on
appreciation ::'o f eonvieted the petitioners
herein and aggrieved by the
conviction preferred an appeal, wherein
their appeai' vsfas. confirming the conviction for
_ the q_e§;p¢¢~:mdc£ "Se<,:_t_;ions 419 and 468 IPC'. and the conviction
.ovther,: 'aeeused was set aside. Aggneved by the
eoneimrent of conviction for the ofienee under Sections
V — 419 the Accused 9103.1 and 6 have approached
' " this fouxfin revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
V jgand also the High Court Government Picador. The points that
arise for my consideration are: K
4 CILRP 219031306
i. Whether the judgment and order of
conviction of the petitioners for the ofience
Sections 419 and 468 IPC and the se1;ite1’1oe.’__j:
thereon as confirmed in the appeal is L”
perverse?
What order?
4. It is the contention the
petitioners that the ‘rfr;.a; the joint
statement of the accused’ tlacie illegal
and therefore, is vitiated by
recording submits that it is a fit
matter the sentence has to be set
aside remitizittg the the Trial Court. Per comm, the
V. High, Gotrereteent Pleader supports the judgment and
zrts below.
.’ . H be seen from the statements recorded by the
‘.V1eamée, Magistrate on 30.4.2094 and 5.3.2005, the learned
has recorded the answers to the eame questions for
‘ accused. So far as the p-zocedmre regarding recording of
” statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 21$ concerned, the said
grmrision is incorporated for giving an opportunity to the
accused to pemonally explain the incriminating circumstances
5 CILRP 219012006
appearing in the evidence against each of the accused. But the
fact that the Trial Court has flamed the joint questions itself
leads to an inference that the incriminating ckcunietances
against each of the accused having not been put
by Way of separate statement and separate
aspect of the matter, the learnedjit
decision ofthis Court reported_in ILR”1A£’¥93 = g’
Vs. State of Karnataka) wherein; hiasefielctfvesttfinderz V
“The object of Sectiet; 313$». to
each and every oneébf me’ jpeiscns to cifer
their own. e§c*p1axt§a.ticn«’=e’_ ‘ any
1’ appear against them in
A ‘Section 313 Cr.P.C. makes it
V,._§;iI’i1§1y elem” cezch and evexyone of the accused
V V” are more accused than one
V ” ” ‘separately and dzistinctly questioned on
circumstances appealing against him
in xwidehce. If the trial Court to save labour or for
xeaecns which cannot be made out accepts a
AA ; *~.3I1ort–cut 311$} puts the questions to the accused
” jgmrscns in a joint statement, it is a clear
infringement of the mandatory provisions cf
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The provision shouid not be
reduced ta 3. drab formality but shouid be
understood in its axle and real spirit as any
B4
6 CILR? 2l9€li’2006
answer given by the accused has serious
consequence of its own either in the same trial or
in any other trial for any other ofience.”
6. So taking into considerafion the
by this Court in the Division Bench decision
and also the provisions of 4,”
opinion that the recording of em join{ or
by the Triai Court by the
accused is in oonuavenfiiexg ef Section 313
Cr.P.C. in that View of tire ‘ ‘tii.ev’ eor1vietion of the
petd1:ioner$”‘remA:’:i:theV’::fErJe1sis.,&V’ef si1ch'”:statement is iiiegal and
therefore; {fie 13011;’ proper to consider the other
evidence Vfhe A;)roe’ecution as the same has to be
u by afier recoxtiing the statement of
.3361″ Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the light of the
observatiorxe above. In the circumstances, I answer Point
‘VVNO. 1 e$rmative and proceed to pass the foikswingz
ORDER
“The petition is allowed. The juciwent and tastier of
” eenvfetioe and the sentence passed against the petitioners for
£ the offence under Sections 419 md 468 {PC is set asfnie. The
matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to record the
04
7′ CILRP 2i90/’2006
statement of the accused separately and distinrctjtlyffiéiiier
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thcmaftcr pass
accordance with law. As the matter »£a..of tl’i<.:W the;
Trial Court is directed to compxete'~.the 'piocéaimg
months from the date of the To-
avoid the delay, the bcfotm
the Trial Court on 1.9.2b0.<§; % % Sd/__
\\ Judge
J3.