Karnataka High Court
Sambulingappa S/O. Ajjappa Talawar vs Ninganagouda Iranagouda Hiregoudar on 4 June, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRL. A. NO. 2518/2012 C/W CRL.A. NO.2517/2012
BETWEEN:
IN CRL.A. NO. 2518/2012:
Sambulingappa
S/o Ajjappa Talawar,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agricultural Coolie,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag. ... Appellant
(By Sri. D.B. Karigar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Ninganagouda Iranagouda
Hiregoudar, Age: 33 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
2. Manjula W/o Ninganagouda
Hiregouder, Age: 32 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
2
3. Sanganagouda
S/o Siddanagouda Hiregoudar,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
4. Premagouda S/o Veeranagouda
Hiregouder, Age: 33 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o Siddapur,
Tq. Naragund, Dist. Gadag.
5. Anandagouda
S/o Siddanagouda Hiregouder,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
6. Girijadevi W/o Iranagouda Patil,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
7. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by SPP. ... Respondents
(By Sri. S.B. Naik, Adv. for
Sri. K.L. Patil, Adv. for R-1 to R-6,
Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP for R-7)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 372 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL; SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
3
OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN ITS SPL.
SC/ST CC NO. 17/2004 DATED 28.10.2010 AND
THEREBY CONVICT THE ACCUSED.
BETWEEN:
IN CRL.A. NO. 2517/2012:
Sambulingappa
S/o Ajjappa Talawar,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agricultural Coolie,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag. ... Appellant
(By Sri. D.B. Karigar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Ninganagouda Iranagouda
Hiregoudar, Age: 33 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o Siddapur,
Tq. Naragund, Dist. Gadag.
2. Manjula W/o Ninganagouda
Hiregouder, Age: 32 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
3. Sanganagouda
S/o Siddanagouda Hiregoudar,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Siddapur, Tq. Naragund,
Dist. Gadag.
4
4. Premagouda S/o Veeranagouda
Hiregouder, Age: 33 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o Siddapur,
Tq. Naragund, Dist. Gadag.
5. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by SPP. ... Respondents
(By Sri. S.B. Naik, Adv. for
Sri. K.L. Patil, Adv. for R-1 to R-4,
Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP for R-7)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 372 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL; SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN ITS SPL.
SC/ST CC NO. 6/2003 DATED 28.10.2010 AND
THEREBY CONVICT THE ACCUSED.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above said two appeals are clubbed in order to avoid repetition of facts involved in these cases and the common judgment is passed.
5
2. The appellant who is the complainant in Spl. Case No. 17/2003 and PW-2 in Spl. Case No. 6/2003 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag challenged the judgments passed by the said Court in the above said two cases vide Judgments dated 28th day of October 2010.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, on 10.02.2003 according to the appellant in the morning hours at about 5.00 a.m. the appellant -
Shambulingappa was proceeding to his land to harvest the wheat crop. He was alone going towards his land on that day. While he was passing through the house of the accused No.1 he observed a dog chased him and attempted to bite him. When he was about to beat the said dog with a stick the respondent Nos.1 to 4 who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Trial Court came there and tied the appellant to a telephone pole with the help of rope and abused him with filthy 6 language and assaulted him with hands, stick and rope. It is specifically alleged that Ninganagouda Iranagouda Hiregouder - Accused No.1 has assaulted the appellant with stick and he came with a heated iron rod and swiped iron rod on different parts of the body of the appellant. Due to which he sustained burn injuries and he lost consciousness and thereafter his father came there admitted complainant to KIMS Hospital and taken treatment there.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that though he did not file any report before the Police but the Police themselves came to the Hospital and taken his left hand thumb impression thereafter concocted the FIR (Ex P3). It is contended that thereafter some days, later he came to know that the contents of the FIR registered by the Police was not as stated by him, therefore, he lodged a private complaint before the J.M.F.C., Naragund Court narrating the above said real 7 facts. The learned Magistrate has registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) r/w 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i) (viii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused persons. Thereafter, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses on behalf of the complainant, i.e. to say three witnesses were examined by the complainant in that private complaint. As the learned Magistrate came to know that a Police case is also registered by the Police in Crime No. 19/2003 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 355, 342, 504 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and also Section 3(i) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1987. The learned Magistrate in fact has stayed the proceedings for some time.
5. It is seen from the records that the Police after due investigation submitted a charge sheet before the Special Court and a case is registered in Special SC/ST 8 CC No. 6/2003. It appears, after the said case is being registered in the special case, the learned Magistrate has also committed the said private complaint to the Special Court. In fact, the Special Court has also registered the said complaint case in Special SC ST CC No.17/2004. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded with the Police report and framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 355, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i) (ii) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused in Special Case No. 6/2003 examined 13 witnesses PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and also material objects 1 to 5 and closed its case.
6. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments proceeded to pass the judgment in both the cases on the same day. 9 The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that when the Police have registered the case, investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet on the same factual aspects and a private complaint is also filed on the same factual aspects but with different motives for commission of the offence by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that proceeding with the Police report to try the accused is proper, therefore in fact, he dismissed the Special SC ST Case No.17/2004 as not maintainable and accused were acquitted so far as that case is concerned. On the same day, the learned Sessions Judge on merits discussing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and acquitted the accused in Spl.SC ST CC No.6/2003. The above said two judgments are assailed before this Court.
10
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that though the incident taken place with regard to the assault by the accused persons on the appellant and sustaining of injury by the appellant are same but so far as the facts relating to motive is concerned, the appellant has denied in his statement in the first information report alleged to has been given by him before the Police. Therefore, he has led the evidence before the Trial Court speaking to the truth as to what exactly happened on that particular day according to him. Though he has produced sufficient material before the Trial Court the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly recorded an acquittal judgment against the prosecution. He further contends that the evidence of PW-2 coupled with the evidence of the Doctor, if it is appreciated in proper perspective along with the cross- examination of the complainant, which definitely show 11 that there was some ill-will and misunderstanding between the accused and as well as the complainant with reference to feeding of water to their lands, with that vengeance the accused persons have committed such offences. Though the case has been amply proved before the Court, the Trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons. Therefore, this Court has to re- appreciate the evidence on record and to convict the accused persons for the offences alleged against them.
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents (accused before the Trial Court) contended that the materials placed before the Trial Court by the prosecution shows that there are two divergent versions stated by PW-2. He has given the report before the Police as per Ex.P3 and filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.493/2003. The motive factor and the factual aspects actually happened on that day has been totally deviated, and two different 12 versions have been stated by him. Therefore, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence holding that PW-3 is not a trust worthy witness for acceptance. He further contended that except the evidence of PW-2 there is absolutely no material to corroborate his evidence. Further, added to that the PW-2 himself has admitted that there was misunderstanding and ill-will between himself and the accused persons, that may be one of the reasons to foist a false case against the accused persons. Therefore, considering all the evidence, circumstances prevailing in the case the Trial Court after properly appreciating the materials on record rightly acquitted the accused persons and there is no room to interfere with such a judgment. Hence, he pleaded for dismissal of both the appeals.
9. On the basis of the above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is that :
13
"Whether the appellant has made out any reasonable or substantial ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and consequently to convict the accused persons" ?
10. Before adverting to the factual matrix of this case, it is just and necessary for this Court to find out whether the private complaint filed by the complainant as dismissed by the Trial Court is proper.
11. As I have narrated that the appellant has filed a private complaint in C.C. No.493/2003 before the J.M.F.C., Naragund. The allegations made in the complaint with regard to the assault by the accused persons, sustaining of the injuries by him are all same so far as the first information alleged to have been lodged by the complainant before the Police under Ex.P3. The difference is only that in Ex.P3 it is categorically narrated that on that particular date this 14 complainant had been to the house of the accused No.1 in order to have illicit sexual relationship with the wife of accused No.1 (i.e. accused No.2), when he went there, standing near the house of accused No.1, tapped the door of the house of accused No.1 the accused No.2 did not open the door. By that time another accused No.1 came there and came to know about the intention of the complainant and therefore, in order to teach a lesson to the complainant they assaulted the complainant and with the help of a heated iron strip burnt the different parts of the body of the complainant. So far as the complaint averment is concerned, it is altogether on a different factual matrix. The complainant has stated that, on that particular day he was proceeding in front of the house of accused No.1 in order to go to his field, at that time a dog chased him and attempted to bite him. Therefore, when he was about to beat the dog with a stick then accused persons abruptly came there and 15 tied the complainant to a telephone pole and assaulted him and in fact burnt his body with heated iron strip.
12. Looking to the above said factual aspects, the difference between the first information report filed before the Court and the complaint averments is only with reference to the prelude to the commission of the offence committed by the accused persons and not with regard to the actual commission of the offence by the accused persons. Therefore, in my opinion, the Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that when the Police report is already there before the Court and Court has already taken cognizance on the charge sheet filed by the Police and when the Court is inquiring into the truth and falsity of the entire dispute between the parties before him, there was no necessity to proceed with the private complaint. Therefore, it rightly dismissed the said private complaint as not maintainable.
16
13. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the said Special Case No.17/2004 on the ground that after amendment to Section 14 to the SC ST (POA) Act, the Special Court is the competent Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was bad in law. But the said observation by the learned Sessions Judge is not proper because of the simple reason the said complaint was filed by the complainant in C.C. No.493/2003 was in the month of February 2003, but the amendment came into force on 30.09.2003. Therefore, on the date of filing of the complaint, the Magistrate had got jurisdiction to take cognizance and commit the case to the Court of Sessions.
14. The legal implications with regard to a private complaint being filed and the Police Report is submitted on the same facts, what should be done by the Courts is 17 also very well enunciated in a decision reported in Parmanand Sisodia Vs. Madhukar reported in 2002 Crl. L.J. 3640. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that :
"When a private complaint is filed, cognizance is taken, by that time FIR was also filed with Police, the Magistrate called the police report and charge sheet filed. The private complaint would be deemed to have been merged in police report, accused were discharged by this High Court in the appeal filed against framing of charges, question of permitting complainant to adduce additional evidence thereafter would not arise".
It is further stated in the said decision that :
"when the private complaint is deemed to be merged in the police report as envisaged under Section 210(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and in the said case the accused persons have already been discharged, the 18 question of permitting the complainant to adduce evidence in the private complaint would nor arise".
If the above said principle is applied in this case, as I have already noted that the factual matrix regarding commission of the offence in both the cases are identical. The offences alleged against the accused are all identical, only the motive factor is different in the complainant and in Ex.P3. When both the parties had opportunity before the Sessions Court during trial in the report submitted by the Police after framing of the charges, in my opinion, there was no necessity for the Trial Court to provide any more opportunity to the complainant to proceed with the private complaint. Consequently, the private complaint virtually becomes redundant and liable to be dismissed as rightly done by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, there is no ground made out by the appellant in this case in order 19 to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge so far it relates to Special SC ST C.C. No.17/2004. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 2518/2012 consequently deserves to be dismissed.
15. Now, coming to the Criminal Appeal No.2517/2012 as I have already narrated that in this case the learned Sessions Judge after analysing the evidence of all the witnesses has observed that PW-2 has failed to give proper evidence supporting the contents of Ex.P3 filed by him and he has stated that he has not at all filed any report as per Ex.P3. He does not know the contents of Ex.P3, but his father has filed the report to the Police. But PW-4 - father has stated in his evidence that his son filed a report before the Police. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of PW-4 is silent about the overt-act of the accused on the date of the incident. Therefore, the testimony of PWs 2 and 3 having no consistency with each other and 20 the other witnesses have in my opinion, totally turned hostile to the prosecution case no evidence corroborating the case of the prosecution nor established satisfactorily the alleged offences against the accused persons. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused persons.
16. Now, in order to appreciate whether the observations made by the Sessions Court is proper or not, it is just and necessary to have brief look out the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
17. PW-2 is not a relevant witness who has given only the Caste Certificate of the accused persons and as well as the PW-2. There is absolutely no allegations whatsoever in the evidence of PW-2 (appellant herein) that on that particular date the accused persons have abused him with any filthy language particularly referring to his caste. Therefore, there is no semblance 21 of evidence in order to attract any provisions much less Section 3(i) (x) of SC ST (POA) Act. PW-2 has so far written the complaint narrated about the incident. I would like to discuss his evidence little later.
18. PW-4 is the father of the appellant. Let me see whether he is an eye witness to the incident. He deposed before the Court that, on that particular day of the incident one Shettevva came to his house at about 4.30 a.m. and informed that PW-2 was being assaulted by the accused with incriminating articles by tying him to a telephone pole with a plastic rope. Thereafter, himself and Dharmappa went to the spot and found PW-2 was tied to the telephone pole and PW-2 sustained burn injuries and all the accused persons were present at the spot and PW-2 was unconscious. Thereafter, PW-2 was taken to the Hospital. So, it clearly goes to show that this witness and Dharmappa were not eye witnesses to the incident. They never state any overt- 22 acts of the accused persons. This witness also says that they called elderly person in the village and PW-3 came there and in fact advised the accused persons, but the accused persons did not listen to his words. In order to support this version, PW-3 was also examined, but he turned totally hostile to the prosecution case. He never supported to the prosecution case to any extent. PW-5
- Dharmappa Talawar in fact also deposed to the same effect as that of PW-4. He has also not an eye witness to the incident. One Irappa Kurabar is the witness to the panchnama - Ex.P7 under which the Police have seized MOs 1 to 3 from the spot. But there is no support from this witness also. Like that way PW-7 - Irappa Alagawadi, who was examined as an eye witness to the incident and PW-8 - Surappa Ambiger, PW-9 - Mudakappa Bisinakoppa were also examined as eye witnesses to this incident. But none of them have supported the case of the prosecution.
23
19. PW-10 is the retired Dy. S.P. who investigated the same and submitted the charge sheet. There is no incriminating evidence available in the evidence of this witness against the accused persons. PW-11 Iranna Kulkarni is the person who actually recorded the statement of PW-2 in the Police Station as per Ex.P3, registered a case and sent the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P10 and thereafter, he sent the complainant to the Hospital for treatment. According to the complainant, this witness is the relative of accused persons, but in the evidence of PW-1 nothing is there to suggest that he is the relative of the accused persons. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that PW-11 is the relative of the accused persons, but except his bald statement which was denied during the course of cross-examination of the accused persons nothing is there to indicate that this Iranna Kulkarni is the relative of the accused persons. Mere saying that PW-11 is the relative of 24 accused persons without proof and only for that reason a false first information has been prepared by PW-1 cannot be believed unless the said allegations made by PW-2 is established by cogent and convincing evidence satisfying the Court. Therefore, the said allegations remain as mere allegations without any proof.
20. PW-12 is the Doctor, of course he has supported the case of the prosecution and stated in his evidence that he has examined the complainant on 10.02.2003 at 3.00 a.m. and found the injuries on his person. According to PW-2 as stated by him in his complaint that the incident happened on 10.02.2003 at about 5.00 a.m. The evidence of the Doctor shows that the complainant stated before the Doctor that he sustained injuries with assault on 10.02.2003 at 3.00 a.m. The injury certificate Ex.P12 also discloses that PW-2 was examined on 10.02.2003 at 1.15 p.m. The document also shows that injuries said to have been caused on 25 10.02.2003 at 3.00 a.m. due to the assault. This discrepancy has not been satisfactorily explained. But this particular document - Ex.P12 do not disclose the names of any of the accused persons. The complainant has never stated who actually assaulted him and caused injuries on him. The Doctor in his evidence also does not say that the complainant has disclosed the names of any of the accused persons as the assailants when he was treated in the Hospital. The time mentioned in the injury certificate and also stated by the Doctor is far far different from that of the time stated by PW-2 in his evidence. According to PW-2, the incident took place at 5.00 a.m. and even his father also says that the incident took place at 4.30 a.m. and the Doctor says that the complainant has stated before him that the incident took place at 3.00 a.m. Even Ex.P12 also it is mentioned as 3.00 a.m. Therefore, the Doctor's evidence shows that the complainant has 26 sustained those injuries, but it is not helpful to come to a conclusion as to who actually caused such injuries. Therefore, I am only left with the evidence of PW-2, no other evidence is available in order to support the case of the prosecution that the accused persons have actually assaulted the injured and caused such injuries. In this background, now let me consider the evidence of PW-2.
21. PW-2 though stated in his examination-in-chief that, on that particular day he was proceeding in front of the house of the accused No.1 and the accused persons have assaulted him and caused such injuries. But nowhere in the examination-in-chief he has stated what was the motive or the reason for the accused persons abruptly coming there at about 5.00 a.m. during the early hours and assault the complainant. It is not only the allegations of assault but it is specifically stated that the accused No.1 came with a heated iron 27 bar and touched the different parts of the body of the complainant so as to cause burn injuries, whether there was so much of time to the accused person to go to his house and heat the iron rod and come and cause such injuries or whether the accused persons were earlier fully prepared to assault the complainant is not made known. The motive or the intention of the accused persons has not been specifically stated by PW-2 in his examination-in-chief. Though in the cross-examination, it is elicited that earlier to the incident the complainant
- PW-2 was knowing all the accused and the accused persons were not in good terms with the complainant, that too with regard to the feeding of the water from the channel to the agricultural lands of the complainant. But this particular aspect should be taken with a pinch salt assault because of the reason the motive factor and the ill-will between the accused and the complainant would cut the case either of the prosecution or the 28 defence. This motive or ill-will between the accused persons and the complainant has to be taken into consideration with other surrounding circumstances and other corroborative materials on record. Of course, if the prosecution is able to produce sufficient materials to corroborate the evidence of the injured PW-2 then this particular ill-will could have been taken for the purpose of holding that the accused persons because of their ill-will and vengeance committed such an offence against PW-2. If the prosecution fails to establish the case with corroborative materials in order to prove the allegations made against the accused persons this particular motive or ill-will between the accused and the complainant definitely would cut the root of the prosecution case itself, because it can be either way inferred by the Court because of the ill-will and hatred between the accused and the complainant perhaps there is chances of foisting a false case against the 29 accused persons. In view of the above said factual aspects, I am of the opinion, the evidence of PW-2 alone cannot be relied upon for the purpose of drawing any inference that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. The Police have submitted the charge sheet on the basis of the FIR as per Ex.P3. According to PW-2, he never given any such information to the Police. PW-11 who is the Police Officer who is a public servant, he has categorically stated that, on that particular date the complainant himself went to the Police Station and gave oral complaint and PW-11 has reduced the same into writing and it was read over and after knowing the contents PW-2 has affixed his LTM.
23. The learned Counsel contends that PW-2 knows signing (putting his signature) he is not a LTM. Therefore, no occasion for PW-1 to take LTM of this PW- 30 2 contrary to his submission. If we read the evidence of PW-2, it clearly discloses that PW-2 has deposed that due to the injuries sustained by him he became unconscious and he gained his consciousness in KIMS Hospital, Hubli and Naragund Police went there and obtained his LTM on a complaint. But they did not entertain his complaint. So, himself clearly disclosed that he has put his LTM on a report. It is not his case that, he has given some other report to Police other than Ex.P3 to the Police. According to him, he has filed a private complaint before the Court. He further deposed that his father has filed a report before the Naragund Police Station. The evidence of PW-11 so far as this aspect is concerned, the father of PW-2 he stated that on that particular date of incident the accused were advised by elders of the village, but the accused did not listen on the spot, then he went to Naragund Police Station, narrated the incident orally and the same was 31 reduced into writing. He never states that his son PW-2 was not with him on that particular date. PW-2 says that his father actually came to the spot and took him to the Hospital and in the KIMS Hospital he gained consciousness. Therefore, after the incident his father was throughout with PW-2 till he was admitted to the hospital. Therefore, it becomes doubtful circumstances as stated by PW-11 whether PWs 2 and 4 went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR as per Ex.P3. The conduct of PW-11 being the public servant as Police Officer cannot be unnecessarily doubted he has discharged his duty in accordance with law and after recording the statement of PW-2 he must have registered the case.
24. The motive attributed to the accused persons and the circumstances narrated in Ex.P3, in my opinion, little bit relevant to consider the attitude of PW-2. As per the evidence of PW-2, he has stated that he was 32 proceeding in front of the house of the accused No.1 and all the accused abruptly came there and assaulted him without any reason. But in Ex.P3 it is categorically stated by PW-2 that, on that particular day of the incident in the early hours at about 4.00 a.m. he went to the house of the accused No.1 in order to have illicit sexual act with the wife of the accused No.1 and in that context the accused No.1 and other accused persons who were there near the house at that particular point of time, they came little later and found the complainant near their house attempting to gain wrongful entry into the house and thereafter, the accused persons have assaulted the complainant. So in order to ward-off this particular attitude of PW-2 in going to the house of accused No.1 to have illicit sexual act with the wife of the accused No.1, perhaps he must have changed his version and filed a private complaint before the Magistrate. Even assault by the accused persons for a 33 moment is accepted, perhaps the accused might have assaulted with other persons in order to teach a lesson to the complainant. Because according to his own admission, he has gone there to have illicit sexual act with the wife of the accused No.2. Therefore, the two versions stated by the complainant in Ex.P3 and in the private complaint make totally the case of the complainant doubtful. Therefore, when a serious doubt is created in the mind of the Court, the evidence of PW-2 cannot be made as a sole basis for convicting the accused persons. Therefore, I don't find any strong reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
25. Moreover, the Apex Court in a decision reported in 2013 (1) Kar.L.J. 591 SC between Govindaraju alias Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S. and another has laid down certain principles as to under what circumstance the Appellate Court could interfere 34 with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court i.e. to say :
"The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal but normally should not substitute its views unless it records the reasons that findings recorded by the Lower Court are erroneous, contrary to the settled principles of criminal law and the judgment of acquittal is perverse on facts or law".
26. In view of the above said factual matrix and also the circumstances of the case and the above said decision, I am of the opinion, the Judgment of the Trial Court is neither illegal nor capricious so as to interfere with the same. Hence, both the appeals also deserve to be dismissed.
27. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2518/2012 and 2517/2012 are hereby dismissed.
35
As this Court has considered the case on merits, the delay in preferring the Crl.A. No. 2518/2012 is hereby condoned and accordingly, I.A. No.1 in Crl. A. No.2518/2012 is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rbv