The State of Karnataka vs Ganesh Shetty

P.D. Waingankar, J.—Heard learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

Delay is condoned. I.A. 1/15 is allowed. Both the counsel were heard on merits.

The briefs facts of the case are as under:-

One Santosh. S/o. Mahadevappa Chavan, resident of Madarmaddi, Dharwad town is the complainant. He is a tempo driver by profession. One Basavaraj Neelappavar and another Basavaraj Katagi were his friends. On 14.9.1999 at about 11.30 p.m., the complainant alongwith his friends had been to "Pearl Bar and Restaurant" in Dharwad to take food. They went there in a tata sumo vehicle. Accused No. 1 was working as manager in the said bar. Both the friends of the complainant consumed 90ml of liquor each from accused No. 1-Manager and after consumption of the liquor, they asked the complainant to provide them another 60ml of liquor. The complainant placed order for additional 60 ml. of liquor for his friends with the manager. At that time, it is alleged, accused No. 1 picked up quarrel with the complainant and his friends alleging that they did not pay the amount of liquor which was served to them earlier. As a result, there was some altercation between accused No. 1 manager on one hand and the complainant and his two friends on the other. At that time, Ganesh accused No. 4 and Vinay - accused No. 5 who were in the hotel instigated accused No. 2 and 3 Lakamsingh and Nagaraj to pull down the shutters and teach lesson to the complainant and his friends. Accordingly, accused No. 2 and 3 pulled down the shutters of the bar, all of them joined with accused No. 1-manager, they abused the complainant and his friends in filthy language. Thereafter, accused No. 1 is alleged to have assaulted Basavaraj Katagi with a cricket stump and accused No. 4 with a karate nonchoc over his head. Accused No. 2 and 3 assaulted the complainant with sticks on his back, left leg, thigh. Accused No. 5 assaulted on his face, consequently, Basavaraj Neelannavar succumbed to the injuries.

A complaint came to be lodged by the complainant Santosh, which came to be registered in Crime No. 65/1999 of Dharwad Town police station for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against all five accused persons. Accused No. 4 was absconding throughout. Therefore, the case against him was split up and the trial went on against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in S.C. No. 178/2000. The prosecution in all examined 31 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-31, marked Ex-P1 to P47 apart from M.O. 1 to 11. The learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad on appreciation of evidence by his judgment dated 24.10.2001 acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 of all the charges levelled against them. The State did not prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

It appears that after disposal of the Sessions Case, wherein all the accused were acquitted, accused No. 4 came out and voluntarily surrendered before the police. Separate case in S.C. No. 46/2014 was registered against him. When the case was posted for hearing before charge, he filed an application under section 227 Cr.P.C. for his discharge on the ground that all other accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them after a full dressed trial, all the independent witnesses have turned hostile. It is further contended in the application that if once again trial is held against accused No. 4 with same quality of evidence, no useful purpose would be served. It is mere waste of precious time of the court.

The application was opposed by the State.

It was heard on merits and by order dated 30.9.2014, the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by accused No. 4 came to be allowed, thereby, discharging accused No. 4. It is against this order, this revision is preferred by the State.

The only question to be gone into as to whether whatever evidence given by the witnesses already examined in S.C. No. 178/2000 is sufficient to convict this accused No. 4 and whether if the very same witnesses are once again examined, something different will come out against accused No. 4. Out of 31 witnesses examined by the prosecution in earlier case, except official witnesses, all other independent witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. Even if they are once again examined, one cannot expect them to support the prosecution case. The incident had occurred way back in the year 1999. The main accused i.e., accused No. 1, who said to have assaulted the deceased with a cricket stump on his head, which ultimately resulted in his death is acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and his acquittal is not challenged by the State. Of-course, the incriminating evidence against this accused is that he also assaulted deceased with a karate non choc on his head. The same evidence was there so far as accused No. 1 was concerned. He said to have hit the deceased with a cricket stump on his head, but, he has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and his acquittal is not questioned by the State. Under such circumstances, another trial against this accused by examining as many as 31 witnesses would be nothing but a futile attempt. Needless to say, it is mere waste of precious time of the court, more so, for the reason that all the main accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Thus the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of material on record and after having considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court has rightly allowed the application filed by accused No. 4. I do not find any illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision petition is devoid of merits. Hence, I pass the following:-

Criminal revision petition is dismissed.