Sri Govindappa vs The State of Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, Petitioner is challenging the proceedings in S.C. No. 672/2009 and the judgment pronounced in the said case on 28.02.2011.

A criminal case in Crime No. 348/2007 was registered against the Petitioner under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. As the victim subsequently died, Petitioner was charged for the offence u/s 304 I.P.C. After the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, framed charges and the trial has taken place. After trial and after hearing the arguments, the matter was posted for judgment on 28.02.2011. The judgment was pronounced in the open court. The accused has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II of I.P.C. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Presiding Officer has passed the following order in the order sheet.

After pronouncement of the judgment, the accused ran away. Hence, intimate the same to the concerned Police Inspector to secure and produce the accused by 01.03.2011.

Several grounds are urged by the Petitioner in support of the prayer made in the writ petition. Petitioner has raised grounds regarding lack of opportunity and the alleged unfair trial which he has been made to undergo. Certain contentions are also urged on the merits of the matter. More importantly, Petitioner has stated that he was not present when the judgment was pronounced, as before he could reach the Court, he was assaulted by some of his relatives which made him to run away. He has also stated that to has telephoned concerned police bringing their notice incident. 4. Since the contention urged by the Petitioner was contrary to the records of the Court, this Court was not inclined to accept the said assertion made by the Petitioner. But the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Armugham filed his own affidavit stating that the accused was not present when the order of conviction was passed and that as he himself is defending the accused in the Trial Court, he is swearing to the said fact. Having filed the said affidavit, he made a fervent plea before the Court that the accused who belongs to economically weaker section is likely to be now tortured and harassed by the police, if he is taken into custody to be produced before the Court, for no fault on his part. He further submits that the accused is prepared to appear before the Court voluntarily so that an opportunity can be given to him to have his say before the sentence is passed.

At one stage, this Court was inclined to direct an enquiry into the matter. However, as an affidavit has been filed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and since it is submitted by the Counsel that it is not necessary to precipitate the matter and that ends of justice will be met if the Petitioner is permitted to appear before the Court and an opportunity of being heard is provided through the learned Counsel regarding the sentence to be imposed, the Court desisted from directing any such enquiry.

At the same time, in order to dispel the apprehension from the mind of the Petitioner that he is likely to be taken into custody by the police and be tortured, I find that an opportunity has to be provided to him to appear before the Court below on 28.03.2011 at 3.00 p.m., whereupon the Court below shall provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to have his say regarding the sentence to be imposed and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law. If the Petitioner does not appear before the Court below as directed herein above, this order will not enure to his benefit. It is made clear that the other contentions urged on the merits of the matter are not taken into consideration as they are not pressed in this petition.

In terms stated above, writ petition stands disposed of. The Court below is directed to hear the Petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law once the Petitioner appears before it as directed above.