IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 340/2011

BETWEEN

SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA D.NO.9, GIRIDHARSHINI LAYOUT, LALITHADRIPURA POST MYSORE.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, ADV., FOR M/S. P.NATARAJU ASSTS.)

AND:

BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O.LINGAIAH D.NO.155, ALANAHALLI T.NARASIPURA MAIN ROAD MYSORE.

... RESPONDENT

(SERVED – UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.25.10.10 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.S.J., MYSORE, IN CRL.A.NO.13/10 AND ORDER DT.12.1.10 PASSED BY THE III J.M.F.C., MYSORE IN C.C.NO.2583/07.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This revision petition preferred by the complainant is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below acquitting the respondent for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 of IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.06.2007 at about 12.30 p.m. the respondent trespassed into the site of the petitioner/complainant bearing No.9A, abused him and threatened him with dire consequences and thus, has committed the aforementioned offences.

3. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses, which comprised of the petitioner/complainant, two eyewitnesses - PWs.2 and 3, a panch witness examined as PW.4 and Investigating Officer – PW.5. They also got market 15 documents, which came to be marked as Exs.P.1 to P.15.

4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondent/accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the accused got himself examined as DW.1 and also got marked six documents as Exs.D.1 to D.6 in support of his case.

5. The trial Court on examination of the evidence on record and perusal of the documents came to the conclusion that the prosecution has filed to establish the charges leveled against the accused and accordingly, by the judgment dated 12.01.2010 acquitted him.

6. The petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence preferred Criminal Appeal No.13/2010 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, who by order dated 25.10.2010 dismissed the said appeal confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below in acquitting the respondent is in revision before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of the petitioner/complainant, who examined as PW.1 and two eyewitnesses – PWs.2 and 3 examined in support of his case. Despite their evidence being consistent and cogent, without appreciating the same in its right perspective have committed an error in holding that the charge leveled against the accused is not established and accordingly have acquitted him, which cannot be sustained, it be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

9. A perusal of the judgment of the Courts below clearly reveal, the evidence of two eyewitnesses examined in support of the case of the prosecution as projected by PW.1 in his complaint and the evidence

goes to show that they have not whispered a word about the accused either coming near the place of the occurrence, abusing the complainant or threatening him with dire consequences. That goes to show there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1/complainant. Admittedly, there are civil disputes pending between the parties. The Courts below on appreciation of the entire material on record have come to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge leveled against the respondent for want of legal evidence. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said order of the acquittal calling for interference in this revision. Accordingly, there is no merit and it is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

SA