1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.437 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

SRI GOVINDARAJU @ SHIVA

S/O. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.07, 6TH CROSS,
NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE,
HONGASANDRA,
BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.J. NAIK, H.C.G.P.)

***
 2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3-4-2018 PASSED BY THE LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (CCH-71), BENGALURU, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.404 OF 2015
FRAMING THE CHARGE UNDER SECTION 305 READ WITH
SECTION 511 OF THE I.P.C.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner herein filed this revision petition

under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the charges framed

by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Special Case No.404 of 2015

dated 3-4-2018.

2. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are

retained for the sake of brevity.

 3

3. The case of the petitioner/accused No.1 is that

Madivala Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner

and other three accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short, ‘the I.P.C.’), Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

[for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’]. After filing the charge-

sheet, the petitioner and other accused appeared before

the Court and all the four accused filed an application

under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to

discharge them from the said offences. On 25-9-2017, the

trial Court rejected the application. Being aggrieved by

the same, all the four accused filed Criminal Revision

Petition No.1069 of 2017 before this Court. By the order

dated 10-11-2017, this Court allowed the revision petition

and directed the trial Court to re-hear the said application

and to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, by the order

 4

23-12-2017, the trial Court considered the application of

the accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and passed the order holding that the charges

shall be framed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences

punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section

34 of the I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and

also under Section 354D of the I.P.C. and Section 12 of

the POCSO Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, all accused filed

Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2018 before this

Court. After considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, by the order dated 16-2-2018, this Court partly

allowed the revision petition and ordered to discharge

accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under

Sections 504, 506 and 354D of the I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of

the SC/ST (POA) Act and also under Section 12 of the

POCSO Act and specifically directed the trial Court to

 5

proceed accused No.1 and frame charges for the offences

punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 354D of the

I.P.C., Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and also

under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. By the order dated

3-4-2018, the trial Court framed the charges against the

petitioner/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under

Sections 504, 506, 354D and 305 read with Section 511 of

the I.P.C. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and also

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The same is

challenged in this revision petition under the grounds that

in spite of directions issued by this Court in

Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2018, the trial Court

included one more Section 305 read with Section 511 of

the I.P.C. without assigning any reason prior to framing of

the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

Section 305 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. are not
 6

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and

also combined composite charges are framed against the

accused are erroneous. Hence, he prays to set aside the

order passed by the trial Court.

6. Learned High Court supports the order of the

trial Court.

7. Heard learned counsels and perused the records.

8. On perusal of the record and the order passed by

this Court, the charges framed by the trial Court is illegal

and erroneous. For the reasons that, this Court by the

order dated 16-2-2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.39

of 2018 directed the trial Court to frame charges against

accused No.1 is as follows:

“The order passed by the trial Court

insofar as accused No.1 is concerned is
sustainable and the same is confirmed
 7

insofar as accused No.1. The trial Court is

directed to frame charges for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506 and
354D of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)
Act and also under Section 12 of POCSO
Act.”

9. This Court discharged accused Nos.2 to 4 for the

offences punishable under Sections mentioned in the

charge-sheet. Once the matter has been remanded to the

trial Court to frame the specific charges for the offences

punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 354D of the

I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, also

under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, but the trial Court

added Section 305 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C.,

after remand made by this Court.

10. On perusal of the order passed in Criminal

Revision Petition No.39 of 2018 dated 16-2-2018, this

Court observed at paragraph No.5 is as follows:

 8

“xxx xxx

Mere looking into the FIR, complaint and the

statement of witnesses is not sufficient,
unless it is said as to what emanate from
those materials and how those materials are
sufficient for the Court to come to a
conclusion that the application is devoid of
merits. That exercise has not been done by
the trial Court in spite of specific direction
issued by this Court. It is painful for this
Court to say that, the trial Judge has not
even looked into what exactly the order
passed by this Court and what he has to do.
Therefore, the learned trial Judge has made
this Court to apply its mind to ascertain
whether the order of the trial Court is proper
or not. Even on remanding the matter to the
trial Court, once again it will add to the
wasting of time both before the trial Court
and this Court, because it will give another
opportunity to the accused to come back to
this Court once again. Therefore, in order to
 9

avoid such contingency, this Court has to

ascertain whether prima facie case is made
out for framing of charges against all the
accused persons as per the charge sheet
papers. The Police have laid the charge
sheet on the basis of the statement of
witnesses particularly the injured eye
witness and her parents.”

11. This Court has clearly held that the trial Court

is required to consider all the material placed before the

Court and frame charges. If at all any material available

before the Court to frame charges under Section 305 read

with Section 511 of the I.P.C., the trial Court ought to

have given reasons for adding that Section to frame

charges, after hearing the accused or his counsel. By the

order dated 3-4-2018, the trial Court framed the charges

against accused No.1, which reads as follows:

 10

“xxx Accused No.1 not belonging to Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and neighbour of
child victim, CW2 belonging to Scheduled
Caste, knowing very well that CW2 belong to
Scheduled Caste, have been sexually
harassing CW2 for about one year prior to
04.05.2015, by going to her school, following
her, proposing her, despite her protest and on
04.05.2016, at 5.30 p.m, seeing the absence
of complainant, went to CW2’s house no.411,
6th cross, 7th main, Hongasandra, Bengaluru
and abused CW2 in foul and filthy language
and in the name of caste and put life threats
to her and CW2, unable to bear the
harassment poured kerosene on herself and
lit fire, in a bid to commit suicide, and thereby
grievous burn injuries are caused to CW2,
and thereby you have committed offences
punishable u/s 504, 506, 354D, 305 R/w
511 of IPC and section 12 of POCSO Act and
section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, within cognizance of this
Court.”
 11

12. On perusal of the order-sheet, the trial Judge

not at all applied his mind or given any reason for adding

Section 305 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. while

framing of the charges. Therefore, once again the

petitioner is before this Court, in spite of the directions

and observations made in paragraph No.5 of the said

order passed by this Court, the trial Court not followed the

same. No doubt, the trial Court during recording of the

evidence can alter the Sections before pronouncing the

judgment as per Section 216 of the I.P.C., but in spite of

the directions given by the superior, the trial Judge again

committed mistake and erred in framing additional

charges without assigning any reason for adding the

Sections. That apart, as per Section 211 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, every charge under this Code shall

state the offence with which the accused is charged and

 12

the law which creates the offence gives it any specific

name, the offence may be described in the charge by that

name only and as per Section 212 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the charge shall contain such particulars as to

the time, place of the alleged offence and the person,

against whom, it was committed.

13. On perusal of the charges framed by the trial

Court, it is a composite charge framed and there is no

specific and distinct charge framed by the trial Court for

each of the offences, which is illegal. All offences are put

together and framed charges as one charge which is not in

accordance with law. Therefore, on this ground, the

charges framed by the trial Court require to be set aside

with a specific direction to the trial Court to frame

appropriate charges in accordance with law as stated

under Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

even during the trial, if the trial Judge come to the

 13

conclusion that there is material evidence adduced to

frame charges under Section 305 read with Section 511 of

the I.P.C., the trial Court is at liberty to alter the charge or

add the charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure before pronouncing the judgment. Therefore,

on both counts, the petition deserves to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.

The charges framed against the petitioner/accused No.1 in

Special Case No.404 of 2015 dated 3-4-2018 by the LXX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside with a direction to the trial

Court to frame distinct charge as per the law and proceed

with the case and strictly follow the directions issued in

Criminal Revision Petition No.39 of 2018 dated 16-2-2018,

failing which, the matter will be viewed seriously.

 14

Registry is directed to send the records with a copy

of this order to the trial Court, forthwith, for further

course of action.

SD/-
JUDGE

kvk