Karnataka High Court
Manohar S/O Hariba Rathod, vs State, Thro Police Hulsoor on 29 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARN CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 29" DAY OF JULY, 2016. | BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BY v PINTO CRL. RP. NO. 2532 OF 2008 BETWEEN | MANOHAR S/O HARIBA RATHOD - AGE 40 YEARS, OCC AGRIL.. R/O SAIGAON AMBABAI TANDA' TQ BHALKI - Boe 7 PETITIONER (BY SRI VEERESH B PATIL, ADV AND i. STATE, "THRO POL ie EHUL SCOR - POLICE STATION TQ, BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR 7 2. GOURU * 3/0 KH OBA JADE IAV AGE 34 YEARS, Le AMBADA be Ok LAX VIAN S/O GANGARAM RATHOD _ AGE 4 45 YEA ARS, L AMBADA 4. 7 KISH AN. S JO KE fORA JADHAV LAMBADA AGE 23 VE ARS, LAMBADA "8. v AMAN S/O ZAR AGE.25 YEARS, LAMBADA . 4%. DEVRAO S/O GARMU RATHOD AGE 45 YEARS, LAMBADA Bo 7. MALANBAI W/O SHIVAdU] CHAVAN AGE 40 YEARS. LAMBADA 8. SONABAI W/O DEVARAO RATHOD AGE 35 YEARS, LAMBADA ALL R/O GOVARDHAN THANDA Soe RESP ONDENTS | (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K BABSHETTY. HC GP g OR RL AND SRI RAJASHEKAR ASTURE, ADV. F ON RQ" PO RS) - THIS CRL.RP IS FILED u/s: 307 RW 401 OF. C Rg Po. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING * PHAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASE 2D. Va SET "ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DA TE DB 3¢ 3.08 08 PASSED BY THE FYC, AT BHALKI IN S.C.NO.11/07 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS
2 TO 8 FOR THE OFFENCES PUMNISHABL E. u/s 324, 504, 143, 147, 148. 363, 207- B/W AAG GF com AND SENTNECED TO UNDERGO RJ. POR: A PERIOD I N IT 1, ESS THAN 10 YEARS.
'This petition, coming on for continuation of argumer ils, this day the court made the following:
01 RE DER ER This. "ae vetition is filed by the complainant be fore the ' trial Court who is examined as PW-1 in S: C. No. Bly 2007 "on the file of Fast Track Court, Bhalki, challenginig .t the order of acquittal passed by the said Court against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein, who faced, "the 'rial for offence punishable under Sections 1435,
147. 148. 353, 324, 504, 307 r/w 149 of IPC.
€ Pad
2. It is the case of the complainant that on 19.68.2006 at about 20.00 hours at Saigaon Ambabai_ Thanda, Respondent Nos. 2 to & committed, : offence ~ punishable under Section 143, 147, '148, 824,958, 504 and 307 of IPC on the ground that on the said "aay t! He. respondents have stabbed me complainant and "also witnesses 6 to 10 by means of stict KS. 'hands anidstones and have caused simple injuries to them.-
3. It te further alleged that on the same date, place and time the respondents "have used insulting words in order to. breach public peace and also they have used deadly w sapots for the commission of offence
-and 'Fiave kidnapped. Rukmanibai and Vinayak and | thereafter they attempted to cormmit murder of PW-6 to PW-1O, thereby they are alleged to have committed the oo. aforesaid offences. After production of the appellants ~ 'before' the Court, after the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, in order to prove the case, the 8 prosecution has examined in all 16 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13 and produced MO's | to AL The defence got marked Exs.D-1 to D-5 being te ped of , the statements of certain witnesses. Alte ro rear ing t he prosecution and the defence the learned.' ~ J ndge :
was pleased to acquit all che. respondents for. all the offences charged against them "¥ Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal the original complainant appear before the po} ice that is PW. a Man sohar has filed this criminal revision petition seeking to to set aside the order of acquittal and te "pass. the such order as deemed fit in the interest of justice: _
-- 4. PW.1 is the complainant Manohar. he has stated before the Court that on the date of incident accused "Nol and accused No.3 along with accused No.g. were holding sticks in their hands and they were abusing with quarreling words and have assaulted Rukmini with stick. Kishan has assaulted PW-1 with Ze & stick and mother and brother were carried by the aecused in a jeep to their Thanda namely Saigaon Ambabai Thanda, thereafter he has filed somplain to.
before the police.
5 PW-5 Vinayak has also stated the overtacts of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raga ding assanit ty "gticks on his head. both arms," right thigh and also tight knee.
PW-S Rukmanibat has alse. spoke en about % assault on her by the accused Nos. L, 2 and 4 with sticks on her back, hips and Oe n then neck. 'They have farther stated in their evidence th: at one "Dev. das are) aatable has assaulted and instrumental ne the aforesaid assault. Other witnesses examined im 'this case are those who have assisted in abe conduct of the investigation .
Go. "pw-2 Prabhurao is the villager but he has been treated hostile so also pw-3 Pandurang, PW-4 » Haugiappa. PW-6 Mittu is also another injured eye wit ness who has stated regarding overt acts of Accused "A am ra ° 6 Nos.1 to 4, in the same terms as PW- 1, PW-S and PW- 8 PW-7 Sidrarmappa is the head constable w ho hos arrested certain accused persons. PW-9 Jee jabai "ig3 the . wife of PW-1 who has also reiterated wie version of PW-1, also PW-10) stated regarding. the. ov et acts :
including the overt acts of Devadas' constable. pWel i Kamalabai is wife of ; PW-5. she: has also spoken regarding the incident. PW. 12 'phanudas PW-1S Tippanna and. FW. 14 Rajender bh haw been treated hostile to the case of the: or proseoution. pw-15 Dr Ghantappa has certified. "that a Xe has exanined PW-5, PW-6, PW- 1. PW-8 and 'also Pw | 0 and has issued wound certificates as per Exs: P-7 to p: ie pw-16 Adeppa is the PSI of 7 sommenal Police Station, whe registered the case as per Ex PoP complaint and issued FIR.
a li is seen from the evidence of all these no withesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found ee mf that the offence iS not proved beyond reason able doubt and passed an order of acquittal.
8. Heard Sri Veeresh B Patil, lee armed counse 1 , for the petitioner and Sri Shar anabasappe K Be spshety -
learned counsel for the respondent. No. be and ri.
Rajshekar Asture for R2 to RR
9. Learned coun sel" for the petitioner' submits that PW-1} Manohar is. the complainant: his version regarding the incident has been corroborated by the version ; of ws 5 Vi nayak, PW. G6 Mittu, PW-5 Rukmanibal . pw. eejabai, pw-10 Laxmibai and PW-11 amalaat. "He further submits that the evids ence of pw. 15 Dr. Ghantappa indicates that he has | tre: ated Pw ry, PW-5 _ PW-6, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 and has. issixed wound certificates as per Exs.P-7 to P12, hence he submits that the prosecution has proved the .- ease against Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, order of the acquittal is bad in law.
ee
10. Sri Rajshekar Asture, learned counsel for-the respondents submits that al the out set. there is . difference between the version of injured eye witnesses - and the overt acts alleged by the witnesses, does not find . a place in the wound certificates as per Exs.E: @ to p-i2 The wound certificates indicate 'only single sinapie inj ury in spite of four assaults.and so iar as the injuries on PW-9 Jeejabai and PW-10 Laxmibai is concerned, the doctor has stated there are no injuries on their person. Whereas the allegation in the evidence is that they were assaulted witht weapons" purther it is the case of the prosecution that PW-5 Vinayak and PW-8 Rukmanibai . were assaulted _after putting chilly powder on their ~ person. The doctor has stated that there were no signs of chilly powder on the person of PW-5 V inayak and PW-
8 Rukmanibai. He further submits that the complaint piven, by PW-l is received by the Magistrate on 99.08.2006, whereas the incident is alleged to have ee Y happened on 1 93.08.2006 at 20 hours, Therefore, there is a inordinate delay of more than 23 hours in filing the complaint. Further the complaint states abou ( the. :
participation of one Devdas but the 1.0 has jeft the said - Devdas from the charge sheet. Hence. he submits that | the prosecution has not approched with | clear: hands and therefore learned Sessions J udge has acquitted the respondents which acquittal is 'proper and does not call interference.
ll. }Phave gore through the evidence of all these witnesses and fram the materials on record, it is seen that the overt acts alleged against each aecused in the 7 complaint and im the evidence before the Court does not
- - corroborate with each other. Further it is also observed that the evert acts mentioned by each of the witnesses 7 also does not corroborated with the overt acts alleged by » other witnesses. (t is further to be noted that the alleged injuries mentioned by the prosecution witnesses % mn their statement before the Court does not find a place in the wound certificates issued by the PW-is. Dr. Ghantappa. On perusal of the wound certificates as. per» examined by the doetor at 3.39 pm. faame night).
Whereas the injuries found in ; Fexs.P27 . to Pp. 12.does 'not corroborate the version of the eye witnesses who stated that A-1 to A-4 have assaulted ihe injured with sticks etc. Further pone of the witnesses pave specifically identified the sweapons as being. in the hands of a particular accused: teis Aiso. to be noted that the com plaint starts with the presence of one Devdas who is a constable ; and is is stated in the complaint that they
- have come in a jeep +o the area where the witnesses are OS residing, bat. this Devdas has not beer either made in accused Lor: as a witness. Though, it is brought to the
- notice that a private complaint has been filed against "the-said Devdas, it is submitted that the said private ~complaint has been quashed.
oe SRT
12. In view of these discrepancies im . the evidence, after re-appreciation of the evidence on record. ; am of the opinion that the prosecution is "Hot" successful in bringing home the guilt, of the ; accused . beyond reasonable doubt. . The order of ine "jearried:
Sessions Judge does not suifer from' any. ikegality or impropriety and ther efor e the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions. Jude e is | ba ased on the evidence on record, | the Heb. Court 'will be. very reluctant to reverse e the' order of of AC qui rittal passed by the Trial Court, unless the se ae '© conv ine sing reasons for doing so. I do not find any in suck gonivincing reasons for upsetting the order of ¢ cquitte! passed by the learned Sessions Judge. tn that view of the matter, this criminal revision pet lion fails and the same is dismissed.
Sy.
Judge