The complainant Javaraiah stood as a surety for a loan of a sum of `70,000/- availed by accused No.1 from a Bank. Since accused No.1 failed to repay the said loan amount, the complainant went to the house of accused No.1, located at Chiguri Kurubara Beedi, Holehonnur Town, within the limits of respondent-Police Station and asked him to repay the loan amount. The accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the husband and wife respectively, reacted by abusing the complainant in filthy language and caused hurt with hands and threatened him that they would kill him by pouring petrol and setting the fire. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the accused in the trial Court. The matter was referred to the respondent-Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The respondent-Police after registering a crime in their station and investigated the matter by submitted a charge sheet against the accused of the offenses punishable under Sections 504, 323, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC.
During the pendency of the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought retirement from this matter and petitioner No.2 was got produced before this Court. At the request of petitioner No.2, the Court by its order appointed Smt. Haleema Ameen learned counsel as Amicus Curiae for accused No.2/petitioner No.2-Smt.Nagamma.
Learned High Court Government Pleader in her argument submitted that since the petitioner could not make out any illegality in the impugned judgments, the revision petition itself is not maintainable. She further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been properly analyzed by the trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court in their proper perspective. She also stated that prosecution witnesses have spoken about the motive and their evidence that the accused have assaulted the complainant and threatened him of killing would itself go to show that they had a motive.
Learned Amicus Curiae contended that the motive behind the crime has not been established by the prosecution. As already analyzed above, the evidence of the complainant proves that the complainant had stood as a surety for the loan availed by accused No.1. In that regard, the complainant had received a notice from the lender about legal action to be taken against him. It is in that process when the complainant had been to the house of the accused asking accused No.1 to repay the loan amount, that point of time, the accused retaliated by abusing the complainant in filthy words, attempted to assault, and also put life threat to him. It was also stated that the accused abused the complainant in filthy language and attempted to assault him and they have also stated that accused No.2 threatened of burning the complainant with petrol. The said act of the accused though was instantaneous, but, still would go to show that being enraged by the demand for the repayment of the loan amount made by the complainant, the accused took the law into their hands, developed a common intention, and committed the alleged offense. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an absence of motive behind the alleged commission of the crime.
Held the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed in part. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned I Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi, in C.C.No.2958/2010, dated 23.02.2013, which was further confirmed by the learned Presiding officer, Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in Criminal Appeal No.57/2013, dated 09.10.2014, stands modified only to the extent that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 for the offense punishable under Section Crl.R.P.No.414/2015 323 of IPC is modified holding the accused No.2/petitioner No.2 as guilty of the offense punishable under Section 323 read with Section 511 of IPC. Accordingly, the order on sentence imposing a fine of `500/- for the said offense is also reduced to `250/-.