LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-22

PUVITH Vs. MANJU

Decided On March 17, 2022
Puvith Appellant
V/S
MANJU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order dtd. 10/10/2017 passed in Crl.A.No.228/2016 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayapattana), questioning, set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court on remanding the matter for fresh consideration and pass such other orders as this Hon 'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offences on 14/4/2013 at 8:00 p.m, in the coconut garden land of P.W.1 - Guruswamy at B. Chowdenahalli Village and in prosecution of such object abused P.Ws.1, 5, 2, 3 and 7 and assaulted them. P.W.2 had sustained the grievous injuries and others have sustained simple injuries and gave criminal intimidation. Hence, based on the complaint, P.W.9 registered the crime. P.W.10, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet; the same is numbered as C.C.No.1222/2013 against the respondents herein and tried after securing their appearance. The Trial Court considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 11, documents - Exs.P1 to P6 and three material objects i.e., MOs.1 to 3, convicted respondent Nos.1 to 6, herein.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the respondents herein have filed Crl.A.No.228/2016. The Appellate Court considering the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police v. Hoskeri Ningappa and another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509, was comes to the conclusion that when a case and counter case are registered ought to have been disposed of simultaneously by the same Judge and the same has not been done. Hence, set aside the judgment of conviction passed in the criminal case and directed to decide the said case along with counter case in C.C.No.1378/2013 in accordance with the decision in Hoskeri Ningappa 's case (supra). Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court contending that the very order impugned is not in accordance with the judgment in Hoskeri Ningappa 's case (supra). The Appellate Court had not applied his mind and failed to take note of the fact that during the course of whole trial; the accused in that case never took the defense and insisted for simultaneous disposal of the case and counter case.