Karnataka High Court
Sri Annappa Uttam @ Honnappa Pawar @ Kale vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATE[) THIS 4 DAY UP AU(LJST. 201 1
HEP( )RP
THE Ift)NBLE MRJUSTICE E3VP1NTU
CRL.AO._i7jQO7
Brit\vccn:
Sr Annappa Uttarn :a Ilonnappa Pavar
d kale.agecl about 2i voars
0 Shahu Park. Post Bvakud
Raihag Taluk, Belga urn DisL,
Aprieliant
(By Srh RN.Hosamani for Sri ASPati1 Advocate)
And:
S)ç. U]ktriidLIKU.
In St ate Pu 1)110 Prosce u tor,
H ih Court. of karnarnira,
Blingalore.
(.Bv Srii.nand k.Navalfbrn.ath,HCCI P)
This crirninal ncai w filed under Section b4(2l
Cr.P.C. by the ad\ocalc ion c appellant Oi'OIHSI
n1('Tfl' darid di _H --U SLd b Li
Scssiofls ..iudc. P.O. Past Tra ion Couni. (okak in
S C Nodbt.) / 2002, con VlOt.i rig t.O0 a. ppelln.in t of t:hc ffcn.ce
p/ u/t/ 395 r,'w 397 1 PC.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this dan, the
court d.elivered the fbi lowing:
JUDGMENT
d:.atc!d. 25. 10017 passed be th.e Fa.st: Tra.ck.. P ou.rt, (.iiona.k. i.i.r S C 269 / 02 rvw tin I. he appc : rat for the oftrince I nh r qr 'Q ' r ' IPC t ij %f 1t(1 hP hin '' i'• I. risorous impr soninc i t f q : its €ind to • R'. lijO') in de! 1 4 11I1 I p.s ii ' .' I ':ii IC) ti'i' 'ti. lrr sntpic iniprlsi;nnlrnt I''r . per;'c' iii iia:'e inh,:Ilh% It is th' .ase . 'it prosec 'K) 1 ) 8.201 1 at about .) 30 a.m.. hc ippeliant d'OIlIZ V. the deceased Raju L'ttam Pawnr and three more .s' tiSi (f persons against whom die t:ist h;is been spill up •1 t committed d'icoits in thc h of flu nnnpl i IidflI bc inng hous NC) 48b0 situated in 83 N )J)8 Ii. Benciaw ada il1age and tht hi' connnitted ac n' . •i!ir stoic! lH)rlnaio £ ham. mc' tzoid riiain uici •cS i. Rs IJ.t)00; mc! while so eoniirnttinv riuc oit\ the' hne caused mjurits to it 1 ist in Smt L ilsI IT)) I S idashivu Rcv nina Klagdum Ia11appi Re M. iduiii Basappa Re .ippa XT_igrluin. Sidd i p i Ri' iJ.%' M,scI'sm and Ralu 1 i t m P't' ;n . 'wreL the tIle . ,i •. I c ommi t i an olfcr C ndc C 43 39, Pt .3 TIc OS('eIi ') cfl ) fl1 IC' i I a, 1%rJflIflt (I Ill •:J 2. t)TirS%'s .'i:' ,. ir ttani kc ft p 1 d 1 .--i prilci%. . \1. is •. ci b•',•j'. • ,• .1 C 4 Ii t. C I, / S
---4' a a .) .i'.. ,. ;t It.i.'i, i (.Q;L ,IL S..!): .
.4 • .::Ti i.)t '.. • ..:!: • •fl : •4'? S 5% it. :'
r •'
j 11 1 ii') '
\)'"i.t. --"%' •.a'' '.1 .191 • 1' ) inp'aI s1?1 'Sli. 'JI
'i"i
t,I ;'.'. ..'I.'t 'Lit t1!JI ij) 1
' !" .1't{i Hf
I .IU(3 si us i
• I, "
U•fl )flPti.t S'fl .flaf.II'(i I' I. 34. jflt" L'i.''X t a•' 'I igS a.' Si' 'Si).' 'I' )Lfj 'ILIT9I L 1 UOi all) Ui [ 1j E'J) 4 IC St %IUI'JIPSSI )q JO %3JfllU')J LIOIJEflIJflU )I '.1 U: i wt '',I?4 sacs.iu ),4.) '3Lfl(P aqi .un uq siss.)u:T 'i '' .'u ill 1841 S) iiuqns 4J j 'p.111 x1dq a uq ( 'a ipT.t t qi 4.'Itf Ii UI 3SflOtf nfl Jo SJIRiUI 34) )IB (,t i '1 Jn .L'btI )j)I..) 31(1 ii') SISJI act?.) )Lfl L' \\d it'll )ttiIq is rneii x.Idt' nIl ioj jasuno, pausPai J4 ' S .)T( .Iflj P'"Ld 1U3LLUIJ.flol) L1fl03 !' '''I t It:IU!II!.1'N •"ULIlN PUI'ttV p pui: IURJJ.)dJP ;q, .a' aSI UI dUJ ')j '1W UanuH •Vd s pi4 '1 it' hid . P 'L!I 594 'S' pit.)! VI"
p. ii nit I Jl)f )q it' 'I 114 sI I Ii'f j)3)U3)tJ )% flit!' IU1'flad I , 'fl C 0) ) )st'J (I SP )nfIt.( SLtOl%S)S l)flhiP•)I '4) •J.'' V.)fJ 'çsiiiu t)Ll ?1.)j) s' 1 P'V.I' f ''L(tI)'UUL)j.J t t stlhjnht!t-cj in hint ilmi the Tethsjicl.ir PW 22 viua h. ccyid it K d a id fltitieat zur p a i it has not ' i rep' Ic '4 idi ntifii ation 1101 th not s ca insjxc non H hs I i ot çnc n an minute dc t iii, regarding irn rnannc I which lest identiiitatioji iiarade "-as Imid and therefnre. L1c evidence ol P\k 22 sca tar as ihc iclc nzn ot ihc cit usc-cl in the T.i parade is not worth •d an'eplan It :s fairtht r submitted b him that rceoc n of 'old hain at th' Inst n ci the accused is witnessed in P 14 but the cide f PW 14 is vague and PW 14 does not kno ht ,1.t" m where liii' alleged gold chain ' is rent. wed rt: 1 he .a : :s-'-. and thea c'fore. 'he rc-eoven has !t,? its value :rid I c sdrn' fljflflhi be es anneijed with h'' r'ilthen 'aitI It' I occurnd in thc house oi thc ompi-unant it s nrther t submittcd b him th t I first inst c l r Li ( )iiplaInt '4c15 ' 1 ei h n,appn Mat I ni. .c I s ta''l S'31(il ainwht t ;n t he • .Lfli.aiIIt V'I W-' 1 tj, f %t()t( i from his hot." .i!1'I if.i tS' lts h' a-'. da i.t front sta(' Ii) stu'zi ITei , ''ii.its that t' .
i nlc van o da tquil
he F c ( t (,r d
4
I'tc' C
'\ ". 'I',!ra!I'. ;k. ' g ' i
; I ti --
• • j'..t-'.:r4 r !r a- --
- - -_ : ' '- , ': • -,
/-4
Hi%() StcItfli ihat the inj'idc'n' 1% ttlit' d his happc ned. TI
hinhtr submits Lila! P\V% ; I .ii:d 22 :.iu sitili . rnz,:iIiIw
ilk recn''n 3
ant 11w icl,'it:;tinn:i of 't .s( t bS'
nspcctncl £hcrtfore. h p siC ltoi has n cc Ii I
tin attu",ed has i uminitttd tlatoi!% ii 11w itoust ot 11 1
and !liw tilt' order ol corn K !Dal cbs's tint siitlt' Iron. €''
illnznln or infinnit3 so us In iii!cr&'rc with in t"iic appeal
Hi' thcretore. submits 'hat the €Jppedi ma bi dismissed
i .Thc prcsection iii His ('ilsi omrrn fli LI ii 11 Lii
tiling (Ii comPlaint 1)3 ')flt' S.ii.tuppei Re nppa Matada..
resichnt at Bendawathi village. ''n 1 S.b.Ol I! s st,iti'd r
thc complaint that In is ri siding in tht. farm ho se Lloh1f.,
iih his ife and ch kb-en On 11 8 )OO1 at abo 1
the had slept in the night aftc r iikin food. At )(L1' ? (1
.iin.. i,ve rsoi.s came insicie ilw h'nise h ti'nii'iiig 'h-'
r tof tutri rc'nun mo 11w tilt's i!i' lit t s!artrcl uss.: .!t:i ,, 1..
ad 1 s roihc'r hi n'A ud ;t tli( ) I.
isiscd n andthc dogs t r ii ii i .On
fl'NSe Inc in ighbnurine pet . ii . '3flr tw..r tia '.'"i'i .1:.
a'IaI fj
c
t ' jilt. 'Ills iJf, iij
t
7 l i_it n.s.f %:cI. cit.',: it i' :ni. l't
I islaii 'Liii iii I
1
I I I
i%c'( '3 ..c ' 1.1 ''.•
7
- 6 -
name Raju Uttam Pawar fell down and thereafter, the
said Raju Uttam Pawar was caught by the villagers.
Hence? he has filed the complaint.
8. The Raibag police on receipt of the said complaint registered a casc in Crime No. 103/01 for an olTcnce under Sec.397 IPC on 15.8.01 at about 8 a.m., and commenced investigation. On 23.8.01 the accused was apprehended in Raibag bus stand and thereafter he was made as accused in this case and on the basis of the information given by him, a gold chain was recovered in the presence of PW- 14 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The injured Raju LJttam Honnappa Pawar succumbed to the injuries and dicd subscqucnth. The said Raju Uttam is shown as A- I; appellant is shown as A-2 and three other persons are shown as A-3 to A-5 and they are shown as absconding in the charge sheet. Therefore, the appelant alone faced the trial.
9.PW- 1 Sadashiva Revappa Magadum is the complainant. He has reiterated the version in (he complaint and has identified the accused. He has stated that there was a lantern in their house during night which was hi rnin, and uith the lit ip of the li't.i of ihc said intnn has iclenufied the act used.
10 PW 2 Shivalin Paict Pu liii is a .ili 'tilt s P . N'tgesh I. dd ippa K rnidsheUl is a paw-h I r kx P under which inquest ;srt'ct"diiigs •n the bock 01 R:tu Uttam Pa tar "-as t c'flCIUCted PW 4 Shetweppa l3him-q;u l3haj'intri and P1W 143 ha c. turix I h )stik to thc c sc of inc proseL-ul ion c-as"
11. PIS' 5 Malhippa Revuppci Magdum is :i;I hip n- i and an inmate of the house ol PW 1 lIe t as tlso 'i. itt I tiaI he has identified the kt" used on the chite ,f a incident and has also iclentifit ci 'tic aerusecl iii flit p;i c-srflt C' of thc Tahsildar PW t) is also ii oilier iflflict' Sn P1W . 1 of thtm havc Stc ted iF t the iac alt i 'icd ta i-used both al hit' time i, '( ii: C hid l: t,.
idc-ntilic a'ic,n J'aiLIc'
i PIWS iit ht r e' tiftccI it
Raiu I. Itani P:anar -mc" 'hr ':t,rctI ''11flt S'(% ;. .
1
r
h',sjnt:.l. f\4 LI g 1 .in' th.a, :-' i';! :i,jr 'th- - N . •...- -:
I) - I t 1)14
jilt re€a '-I It- h',c 1,1.. .9
4---
H
I PM' 10 Kastiir 1% iso i 'nnat of sPit F
n
1 ,,s.
shy is also an :niiire.I i'w ii 3 Hat
huh ii..a
BciIiari is the person ih.' hi.'s hurnc'ct the d .scl nnc
Raju I Ham Paar aftc r his w sI mort( m exami iiii . PW
12 \tsanthu Sicldnppu Pad) is tilt' owner vi thr crp 1''
wiiieri the injured erc tart it'd ii. ihr h''spitul.
14. flV 11 Mahat rem Ram.ttiiandra IS I"' •
itntss ho has signed I'x P , undcr %hich MO It) wcis
sezcd by the Police. PW 1 5 Siddapa Revuppa XFig'tdtaiii is
nfl inmate of the hous who has aisc' stated ci' crdng
PM I PW lb Ning ippa Sidcl'ppa Pat') his e a.) ccl th'
scent • '1 ollence after 'he incident and has ,tssistec i
mjurecl logo to hit hospval let !rea'nwnt in t
th
t t rn'.th'.
1 5. PW 17 Sliemkari 's an imlependc'nt '.i v iu cs till'
is cept prcscnt at flit tint I 1 1 p radc bjt c ta. ic
spokcii ny thin" 'eg ud 'ig tn 't t. sc d PW iS !c t
arc' tIlt. ['olu e Oft!I fills nan.c taken v€irt n' h
ir estiitzatio
it Iwr ,)rthTI a
1
't1 Cd' 4
f i
it •
x 'zr ts'i '
'c L't fi 1" i
5 nk't'J%("I N', ; q •.',. :' RisIr. •,;i j
ti ill r • •..'
. 'tC . I a it
-9-
T.I parade. PW-23 Dr. Manjunatha has treated the injured persons including PW- 1, PWs.24 and 25 were deputed to trace the accused and PW-26 has registered the case on the basis of the complaint and PW-27 is the Investigating Officer.
17. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is seen that at the first instance, the complainant has not stated anywhere that the articles from his house have been stolen on the date of the incident. The complainant has also not stated any identification features of the assailants or dacoits in the complaint. The only accused arrested was accused No.2 on 23.8.01 and the test identification Paflldt has been held on 9.11.01. There is no evidence brought on record to show that during the relevant period, the accused was not exposed to any witnesses whilc bringing to the court or taking back from the court. Therefore, chances of witnesses observing the features of the accused even prior to the T.l parade are not completely ruled out. The evidence of PW-22 Tahsildar is much lacking in material particulars. The evidence of Tahsildar does not disclose the manner in which the T.l parade was held or the persons who were kept along with the accused for identification or the chronological order in which the a I () w'tnessc s uere asked It ltlt'ti Is the deflist Ci 1':b) ' sin ilar s lookw pi rst ns In t C ibser,' c cI particulars regarding the' nkeiit.e i iii hic Ii 1' : ;'.ei'.ic -' t,ndueted. nit' t'vtLlt'flrt' ' ; T. i %IP I ir 1 )('I OIfl% V 's. !.:
thc absence of aT13 mc fltiOfl at dCfltiliCaIlufl fc'k it Ft ' (ii * acused in the complain', the entin' proc ess I identification of the at'eust'd h 'lit' 1tnesst's lx'. ')TflL s saltwlns and hence, the prosecution has not prtnnl t' t identit of the xcusecl as iht pc' son ho ha tommitt c clacoit in the house of PV 1 il ornplaincnii , 1 q for ,"
reeo en evidence is t onterned. 1 he e idenec ''!' P ' 3 uno is a '& itnrs% for rec men oh MC) '0 do. ', c I n spin mv eonfidc n( e is he doc s not knoi as to from tic re w said ornament "as seized or the prison from wh m it '.n seized. lnder the eirrumsi ann's. I 'inn at th' opit ±' in iF': 't nc pr ution has r iiscrabl I' th d to bnn or t ill of the ac'cuscd IS I have azon rintiugh *I,e inctgnwn' 'ii 'a ' C ,rrt 11' rc sr'arw a 'ned 1 tI' n i C ni' iii h' A5(d ,' h.i,t a' • ra.
r.'. '':'cf ft.. i slit' .51'',. .!''' ' 'I .' ie i. ' : ' ' •
I diN I .c i (I % •1 i. i,(i S ',
'
5
A
rps
wq UIi? I[JJjo Ii o piitnb Si )j pUt
)piSp LS S tUU)C!CIi' i Si1 J))SSPCI UO\Uo
P- {L I C1(1 1 ) L{1 \ uIpJ())) pUi I)LS
fl4i J:)TUUi JO UL{ UI
''I'