- 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 133* DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION N0. 549/214o.1V__g.yy_"e..y_ BETWEEN: Sri.KaIaVeerajah S/o late Kariyappa Aged about 49 years R/of Dibbadahaili, Gollara Hatti Cheloor I-Eobli, Gubbi Taiuk Tumkur District. ' ;-.:..'p.E*rm'bNERw' [By Sr'LV.B.Sidda.ramaia_-h-- 1. Sri. RaI11esE1ADS'/o.rEe--ra11na' Ageda 'bout .24 .years.y_ " " a Occ:CQ_01i-3 V' _ 1 " _ R] of Ke'm_pannadbdd'eri , ,iEKor-a Hobldi; TPL1Ink11r Taluk 8: District , S1d.Sid.da1,ingappa _ _ A y1_\/iahiganna ' .___yAged'_'ab01_1t 24 years A . 3. Sri--§:Ku'rnar, S/o Malamma Aged about 25 years ""Sri. Raganna @ Ranganna @ Raghavendra "S/0 Bhookiraiah Aged about 21 years 5. Sri. Satish, S/0 Chikkanna Aged about 21 years W2- Sri. Girish, S / o Thammaiah Aged about 27 years Occ: Taxi Driver R/o Bhramasandra, Kora Hobli Turnkur Taluk 8: District. Respondents 2 to 5 are R/ of
Dibbadahalii, Gollara Hatti
Cheloor Hobli, Gubbi Taluk
Tumkur District.
State by Chelur Police, Gubbi V”-Fa’1’ui:A _4 0
Tumkur District. I …_}..RE3.PON173EN’ISg.
[By sn. Satish*R. onji,_fo:.~ R7),-71 it 0} 0′
‘i2£v\sloH
THIS CRIMINALAPE’i7IfI'{ONVe1’1″S”E1LED_UNDER’ SECTION 397
READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PP.AY1NC’: “II;IAT”T_H1s<H_oN'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE ,T£~IE*.,.IU3JGME1\*T "ORDER DT.30.0l.10
IN s.C.NO.25/09 PASSED _I3YV"'FHE__P,O *'F*i7C41Ij,–.1UMKUR FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S143, 3(~:_6[a]; '1~i4–,_ WITH 149 OF' IPC.
COMIVN'G__ ON .0 FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT TH
";fEoRnER
revision .is__h}r the complainant against the judgment
cfplacquittalg 'in""'S_._C.No.25/2009 dated 30.1.2010 on the file of
Fast Track Tumkur.
.u”Czh’e1oo14″f police, Turnkur District, charge sheeted the
00 fltaccuséed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 366(A),
. 10001-40.0342 r/ W Section 149 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that, PW2 the daughter of
0. PW1 was studying in college and she used to go to the college by
Walk. On 1.7.2008 at about 9.30 am. she along with PWs.3, 4
-3-
and 5 and others left to the college. At a short distance near
HaVinamma’s house a Tempo T rax which was parked, in which
accused Ramesh. Chikkanna, Siddalingappa and others were
inside the tempo and they promised PWs.2 to 5 that th’ey, would
drop to the college. When PWs.2 to 5 boarded
Tempo Trax turned towards Yannekatte at about”«’.l:O.:3_Oca.m;*
instead of dropping them near the j’s’chooE, fltheygtogolr ‘towards. T. V
Hosakere. When PW2 told the accausedgto the
dropped PWs.3, 4 and 5 and forcibly Viii4’Vthe’l’Tempo
Trax and confined in a hut in..ia”i’ernote._placeland” is in this
regard PWI filed a complaint asiper before PW12. After
three days, the police_ secj’:’ured”.t.he4 ‘v’ibcti_1n’PWi2 and on completion
of investigation; ch-arlge sheet__is flied.
3. The tria1’*Co11rt,. on appreciation of the evidence found
that, cprosecution has failed to prove the charge against the
accusedE”uand”«._acquitted by the judgment impugned in this
Aieirision against which, this revision petition has
i _ been««fiIéCiL’
4′.,i}eamed counsel for the petitioner submits that, trial
is not justified in acquitting the accused when the
V’ fividence of i”-‘W1 father, PW2 victim, PW5 friend of PW2 who was
accompanied PW2 to college has stated that the accused forcibly
JA’
-4-
kidnapped the PW2. However, the trial Court on misinterpreting
the evidence has erroneously acquitted the accused.
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that, PW1 has
admitted that, there is civil dispute in respect of 161
pending between the complainants family and liarnily
for several years and there has been dispute these
families since long and this fact is ‘stated ‘ivn”–th.C’H.c_ross 7
examination. PW2 Victim has also adrriitted that,5a.ecused:’:No. is
her classmate and he is in loy’e;:wi’th her.~._However, PW2 had
denied that, she is interested in’~.E’urtheri, ll-3W5 not only
she is relative of PWs.1 and in–~«.her.j’e_sta.tement before the
police has”i’stat’ed lwe’r’e”l about 15 persons in the
Tempo ‘boarded the Tempo Trax, it was
busy area and the pl.ace_wh’ere they shouted is also a busy area,
‘~ ._not__a single——independent witness is examined. Further,
lwitriesses Tnamely PWs.3 and 4 who were also with PW2
havelliiot supported the case of the prosecution. In View of lack of
‘,evidence.1’ trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and
if l..fsub’m«i.tted that, judgment does not call for interference.
6. Material witnesses who have supported the prosecution
if case are PWs.1, 2 and 5. In the cross examination PW1 admits
that, for last four generations there has been a dispute between
the complainants family and the accused family and the cases
v .-.
-5-
are pending against each other and also admits that, there is
enmity between the parties. He has also admitted that, accused
No.1 wanted to marry PW2 and further admit that,g.th_’e;place
where the PW2 was abducted, is a busy place. PWE;'”thej
her cross-examination admits that, accused “is in
her college. They are in good terniis their4Are]:aticnshipi’is 7
cordiai and accused No.1 is also in lo’-Jethwith and ‘further,’
she states that, other friends .:wcre were
thrown out of the temp:o:i.,_ singleflvvperson has
stated that, they suffered?’ that they were
thrown out. supported the
prosecution é*:ase.,’how7ever,ffinthe,–croAss’-examination she admits
that, she is__ and 2 and she also admits that,
they shouted for’he1’p,’ independent person has been
eXaIni”5’1€”(§..,. Even” ,1:_h’e° place they were abducted being a busy
place,’ in”thecross-examination she has stated that, there were
Tempo Trax including the passengers,
howev_er,,jthe iprosecution has not examined any independent
.”””‘–._iw*z’tnessz having seen the abduction. PWs.3 and 4 who are
Astatedito have been accompangdng PW2, have not supported the
c,aeie of the prosecution case. PW’? the owner of the Tempo Trax
«ehas stated that, the Tempo Trax was on hire on 1.7.2008 and
the driver brought back the Tempo Trax by 2 pm. on the same
day.
W5-
‘7. The trial Judge considering these evidence and serious
contradiction in their statement before the police and the
evidence before the Court and also consldenngj”that”_the
abduction being doubtful, found that, in the light’ that
between the parties and the evider_1_c.e being”not:’.trnstWorteh3t,’l ‘ _
reliable and PWS. 1, 2 and 5 being
that, It is not safe to accept t’he*11j evidence aId1dlAa;cqu1tt.ed lthel’
accused.
Even on reappreciation of e’r1.t1;’reI:je.vidence. I find no
grounds to mte1§fe’1′-ygifirith thegj Ltdgn1e.nt.”of.a€§C1utttal.
Acc’ofdingly, refision fatils”‘etnd same is dismissed.
301/ “ii
fudge