Sathyanarayana Kuduru vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petition coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal given the facts and circumstances.

The background of the case is as follows:

One Prasanna Kumar had lodged a complaint on 13.10.2010 that he had seen a dead body which appeared to be of a person aged about 30, at 7.00 p.m., and that it was a headless body that he had seen. A case was registered by the police against unknown persons having committed murder and in the course of investigation, police had arrested Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on 19.10.2010 and a case had been registered for an offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity). On completion of the investigation, the police are said to have filed a charge-sheet against the accused before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence punishable as aforesaid and had committed the case to the Court of the very District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in January 2011. The case was then transferred to the V Fast Track Court at Madhugiri and after further proceedings, charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined 27 witnesses PW-1 to PW-27 and had got marked Exhibits P1 to P37, apart from material objects MOs 1 to 17. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr. P.C.'', for brevity) and the accused had tendered evidence as DWs 1 and 2 and had got marked Exhibits D1 to D10 in support of their case. After hearing both the sides, the court below had framed the following point for consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No. 1, 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 114 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by murdering one Narasegowda and cut his head separately and buried it and thereby tried to cause disappearance of the evidence?

What order?"

The Trial Court held the said point in the negative and had acquitted the accused and as a foot note to the judgment, had recorded as follows:

"N.B. In this case, the I.O. has made glaring fertile imaginary investigation to fix the accused persons to harass them instead of tracing the real culprits, which is a willful act and abusing of his power of Investigating Officer and he is liable for the misconduct.

It is manifestly clear that I.O.N. Sathyanarayana Kudur in his evidence on record is guilty of the offence under Section 218 of I.P.C., and hence he shall pay fine of Rs. 50,000-00 to each of A-1 to 3 for implicating them falsely in this case, and another amount of Rs. 50,000-00 shall be paid to Smt. Bhagyamma PW. 16, daughter of deceased Narasegowda for he making false, indecent and scandalous imputation against her. The I.O. shall comply the above order within 30 days.

Send the copy of the judgment to S.P., Tumkur and to the Home Secretary of State of Karnataka, for necessary action immediately."

It is the above finding and the punishment imposed summarily as against the Investigating Officer that the present petition is filed by the aggrieved Investigating Officer.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that apart from the fact that the court below has proceeded to convict and sentence the petitioner without a trial or without preface in holding the petitioner guilty in respect of a purported offence under Section 218 of the IPC, it is to be kept in view that there was bad blood between the present petitioner who is the Investigating Officer in many other cases also, and the Presiding Officer/Judge who has passed the impugned judgment. The petitioner is sought to be convicted in another case in similar circumstances, which is also a subject matter of challenge before this Court in Crl. R.P. 740/2012, which is pending consideration. The matter had been referred on the ground that there was contempt of court, which was before this Court in CCC (Criminal) 21/2010 and the same had been dismissed on merits. It is in this background that the petitioner has been implicated and convicted without any charge or being called upon to defend himself insofar as the summary allegation and conviction is concerned.

The learned Government Pleader when called upon to address the court as to whether such a procedure is contemplated where a person can be summarily convicted and punished for an offence punishable under Section 218 of the IPC, he would readily admit that such a procedure is not countenanced and that proceedings had to be initiated for such an offence in the manner known to law.

In any event, from a bare reading of the manner in which the petitioner has been convicted to pay fine, which is to be paid as compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- to one Bhagyamma PW-16, results in the petitioner called upon to pay a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which is in any event an imposition which was possible only if the petitioner had stood trial. Therefore, on the face of it, the said imposition by way of fine is set-aside and invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the same stands quashed.

It is however open for the Presiding Officer of the court below to initiate action against the Investigating Officer in accordance with law, even if it was his belief and finding as aforesaid.