STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Additional S.P.P. on merits in support of this appeal.

(2.) HAVING regard to the state of the record, the first question that arises is as to why at all the State has filed an appeal, because the case has virtually gone by default before the trial Court. This is a case in which a rather familiar pattern is noticed which is something that has been occurring in a number of cases before the trial Courts. The investigating officer has not been examined and there is no indication from the record as to why this has happened. As far as the doctor is concerned, this is a case where Section 326 IPC. is involved. He was the crucial witness and he has also not been examined. There is a report from the Public Prosecutor on record to the effect that despite summons, the doctor had not remained present, that further time was asked for which was refused. Why the time asked for was refused, whether it was because the Investigating Authorities, viz. the police had been remiss in serving the summons or whether the summons had been served and the doctor still remained absent etc. are all areas of importance because we see precious little justification in having concluded this trial without the medical evidence. To compound matters, even the wound certificates have not been produced by the prosecution and we need to observe that all of this reflects very poorly on the manner in which criminal cases are being conducted in this State. The evidence of the injured complainant P.W.1 very clearly establishes that he was assaulted and it also appears that he had sustained an injury of some seriousness. It was absolutely essential in such a situation that justice in the true sense ought to have been done in so far as the guilty party required to be punished and the injured required to be compensated, neither of which has happened because of the state of affairs referred to by us.

(3.) WE need to mention in no uncertain terms that we are anything but happy with the performance of the Judicial Officers concerned who have been recording acquittals indiscriminately and on all sorts of unsustainable grounds. While it is true that the Judicial Officer is required to be impartial and not to take sides in the least with either the prosecution or the defence, there exists a very clear responsibility on the Judicial Officer to ensure that the trial is fairly and properly conducted in so far as any non -observance of these duties would have the direct result in leading to a miscarriage of justice. This is precisely what has been happening because of the incorrect approach of the Judicial Officers in the subordinate Courts in these criminal proceedings. Under the law, where the police or the prosecutor or both of them are either negligent or remiss, the Judicial Officer is required to ensure that the prosecution is properly conducted and that all necessary evidence either oral or documentary is placed before Court. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the Judicial Officer is fully empowered to take necessary steps including the issuance of warrants wherever necessary to ensure that this takes place. We reiterate the fact that the High Court expects a more responsible and a professional approach from the Presiding Officer of the Court who is not expected or permitted to play either a disinterested or causal role in the Court room. We need to specifically bring it to the notice of the Judicial Officers concerned that the High Court is in the process of assessing their performance from everyone of these cases and that the consequences could be serious to them if it is disclosed that the case has gone by default or that there has been a failure of justice because of the non -professional or casual approach of the Judicial Officer concerned.