Karnataka High Court
Arun Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
i KY AK ne can .
* BETWEEN (By Syi, Nandak ishore Boob, Advocate} ALORE , BANG BUTLDINGS i ta SESSIONS JUDGE, GULBARGA IN S.C NOS 1958 CONY FCTING TH :
BE APPELLANTS/ACCLSED No, 1 AND OFFENCES PUNISE OF INDIAN | THEM TO UNDERGOS.(. OF 1 "YEAR. SO > LIABLE TO PAY A PIN "OF RS.SOO/- DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF ¢ CINE fTHE ~ ACCUSED. "TO UNDERGO: AN (AL SOF 1 MO NTH AND Bi :
PINAL tik THE FOLL
- JUDGMENT .-
tS appeal. is. fied by the accused TE per H against the Judgment and convictiol: passed'. De HY Addl Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in S.CLNo. of $908 dated 3-5-2003
2 Accused persons have questioned the conviction passed AgAlISL thein for the ' obences punishable under Sections 307, S04 R jw 3, Poe aecusecdt persons were chat ge Shected$ by TABLE tf INDE aR. °ENAL , ODE. AND qused ae He € « aud e t t aa + prc of £ Rowe 4 HED:
et 2 BLS as thie 'OU q a a my dle un inish & y pr ay ' 4 ALiL L as 3M LS ee i i Med rhea ter aft hy w ve of rae or "
Shad ao a3 ued = ert + a JG, bis 8 brothe the quarrel and further calleged.. that: * the . aan 'uinplaimeants father, brother. and others not niterverned, the accused persons would ave kill him. Police basing on the complaint, investigated ihe matter "aa « charge sheer filed ad "Ar Lu _ umer and Accused a t Gui Support of the case of the prosecution, pLOSSC UTEOH has examined PW-1 to PW-L1l and ; MO Nock. to NLO.No.3. No defence evidence is led by a the. accusea persons. However Ex.D.i to Ex.D.G were dmarked) ui the evidence of prosecution. Trial Court on PM prec waling ail the evidences had observed at page No.35 of its Judgement that section 307 Code does not atiracts, bur se YEaQY at Lil Vasantha he shouted, dy thet os Lora) of Rs. 300/- each for the offence punishabls. uncer.
acguilted the accused persons for the _ offence x punishable under Section SO¢ R/w Sec 34 of Indian Penal Code.
7. The learned counse} appearing for the * fee appellants su pee in tite a that . the _ Preseoutinn though has POL oro pw. LO. PW.7 ois the examuned 2 wia ther and PWoeb is sted witnesses, no ide pendent witnesses "have been examined by the prosecution Even some witnesses, who have Seen examines uv the prosecution, have turned hostile. [He £y i rther 8 abihisted that the evicience of PW.o1 to G are centradiciing each other PW.1 in his evidence stated that accused Now Vasantha assauited on his back booiub and he fell unconscious and thereafter he 'does not know what happen. Whereas in the complaint Ex.Pli which was regisiered by the police ar 7.15 a.m, wherein P' 'i has stated that accused No.l assaulted bum with knife on the left side of the chest. Accused section 324 R/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code arid had. Soll tod pa a 7 if "en % persons held the compiatuant. In the complamt:. nowhere PW.1 states that, he became unconsctovs. iminediately after the assault by-., accused No.2. liowever in fiis evidence he alleges ae he ¢ does: not know anuvtihing afier tae assault by acc vased No.2. He does uot know whether accused NCA 'Ot his deceased + brother, who claims to be an Eve ¥ vines: has st ated ii the cross-examuiation that he came to the sp at bY that time accused No.1 had + complainant. The oniy witness asho has. speaks of the incident, PW.3. who is the dingly to PW.S he alleges that He was it his house at the time when the incident took + + BECe, b auton hearing the shouting of PW.1, be came to "dae spot and alleges that the accusea persons were ii assaulting the complainant. But in the evidence he has uot stated as to whether PW.1 had became unconscious. He further alleges that accused No.l assaulted the PW.1 in the abdomen and stomac Ih ? assaultedd with the club and the father of atcused >. :
~~ Whereas PW.1 alleges that he was assaulted "b by the:
accused with knife on the chest. Ex. P.2 is 'the vound 7 eertificute which dues not corrobiinete with the. evidence of FAVS, o, PW.1, mw and Pwo axe the interested witnesses and all the t hhree withesse s States that at the We Were several aac the public tap at anv tune paktiuram DO. to. 25 persons would be present, However none ofthe so called independent witnesses have beer examined who were present on the spot. He further. submitted that it is too unnatural that the t peojile SUrio unding pear the pubHe tap could be ry OW atc Hing. Une assault on the complainanc aceused persons without any body coming forward to iG. Relving on the evidence of PW.1, PW.S and PW.4 he furdier submitted that PW.1G who is the lavestigating officer, who recorded the statement of the complainant at about 7-15 p.m. and thereafter he sent him to the hospital for treatment. However the wound dA! tate S Gus aR OF ew:
£ it a LRLIEC oe
-£ UE c x 1 a Ct ~, Witnessed eer b ICC evider 4 ee ia phe 5 L BOE reas ist) OL Sages 10 recorded at Hospital and thereafier at police siation..'-
But the prosecution records do. not "show the statement of PW.1 recorded at. bos} vital. categorically states that he Hee: ALC unconscious, after . he was assaulted by accused No.2 and he, does snot know anything thereaftcrie., he became unconscious inmediately atter the assault Ll: €, atvabout 6-45 a.m. egained hi is: fe OSC jousness alter 15 minutes Le., AS ae aed he en awe ht at about 7 2G a AL, , pw.3, 3 cand: 4 does not speaks about the or PW.T ie. with regard to, Whether He Was vanconusctus or whether he was ca pable of giv ing Statement at about veh certificate discloses that the uiured was "shifted to fhe hospital at about 7-00 am. The doctor iS examined before the trial Las t disclosed whether PW. 1 WaS 11 CONSCIOUS OF ticoHrscionis While he was brought belore him. The evidence of other prosecution witnesses do not discioses the overt act caused by the accused persons on PW.1. PW.4 who is the brother cf PW. states that ne has seen the inculent, hut in the cross-exannnation bas stated that, when he rushed to _ ned 'the orily eacl r, x he.
wee ot yen He r = is + er fa ad we yon pee fa?
Mee Wi nad ~ rr) wae 1G £ i x $ lad gone Lh } anid < « LISS } 4 tith a # ae a time he was at th AL rani ¢ wate a EEC E fos fe Es aiis a < q alter out side only GHC "ey .
€ Ve Lit wi eel = nan '85 oo.
de Pate aay"
ie Le Ly x © incident. PW.3 also states that public were present at previcus da test morming accused persons assa cath
14. The prosecution - hie aS VOL "pt auned as to why the independent witnesses he We HO, as Witnesses examined befote the court Le... PN-S to & have also turned hostile:
IS. Fven the parich witness ie., PW.9 has also . _ Patan".
turnicd. hostle. Except PW.3 no other witnesses have supported the case of the 2 prosecution, | Gvcused persons. prove its Case agein reasonable doubt aud that is possible oniv when : } <b Penge tes 2, which shows > -- hoy OF ned indury No.l is erie GS ih has Stated that om the. y there was a gquarzcl and nvAcx - cay iO. Ne deubt the minor discrepancy or ee ae * s re we fm) va} , a. oo o os a oe t 'an ~ oS - .
" ead we Ge m4 ee Swe or etna , " : :
ro a na 4 4 : 'al a shed e. test ad a iad oO ang spo " bal a . "4 sa Pi a em ven ay cael lan "s - anal wt i ws ond er ont Nad =) 2 z qe "S wd sae co al an % rae a feos an vf ty ae ond OS 4 ¥ wae a p 'oat oo "é fant rt AN q care ed tS eed © ca aaa ieee tet roost she Se a wa Ane : a sy wi rt cae) a Ge ve + ye an? te ; va me) ay ened Ne ' oad os od g wy we. * we hao Ve a ant a a ia . ms ret Q) Sl pet" oy 5 : a ion ea be a a ah ra) i? ~ ow) "4 rt a .045 aoe ma Ss coos Ss So 8s i wget 7 ie ven "t wv) rm Leena " ~_ ai ' . ent aver) wo fod [tae eet a od 0 * one teal a YY ww by ad at oe re y . on ay a ' eel Ss Bt Pes pa sy ed hod a Se) Set ew ; Sy ne) on ay ' i i 45 ae an pet fast pon Pa sod ae ans Sal Cj \ ol rae ae) "oy een Bo 8 A ae Bog 4S 5 & : S a . os dad : Ma . at au ee ie paved red a aed wa Che ae 2 hee 7 wi 3 tend Med an Sh a aes . : a Raed é r ae ond at tant 'é pans ry mT fi os * Q v9 a re os os a ae) 'ad aoe rf ; . io, wo = u cs 4 + = oS & A me = aay So yo : gq « " md 8 3 ra : m4 oa a ee a fay he wa ps a vd rn aad po can 4 4) we Ge » Pad el pero o a CS fo M bel i ro on fh te x A ws 3 man fa . 7 ref We we eo wood w a wad ta vot Ww ~ hee od bed wy "+ Sa a how! " font Ly aw ea ped a. Sa 4 wi os asset of wee s " ; "4 ms te 4 of ; Q ¢ io; mend "4 ans ee w "~, + Pon as fa ed "sy ped er "4 geod oS or ed Ww ee fal hall ea spot | at ani wy Paes) rong ee some ~~ we par ~ ad aod ay Sead : o 4 tt pol ay fi esi & Noel a rd aaa ted os are 'he pet a ed an fi fi Reta an ool ae ior) ~ vad ty eel aed 2nd ore] con i ares bel No Fi fe "0% . seed pee pa, ins Nal ct fy Ne ot : ny , ha oe y OU Qo & " Ow OS ;
ms \ : a - a ! ' i , aan "ve ran od fy wad ot eet a, ead Capone pet _ fawal han or © 77 a ood -- ~ ¥ Q2 ed fi » wn ' cS m4 rave yy 4 oe weal in sy ME 4 seo! , a a er; wh ~ roe pny fp oe) = o = , We ms L fF 5B 2 ~ oot m a4 die aa sh bot ped . a ' sar] > oom, e we aa . ; 0 seed oo Se * ce a -- os fo cy a a poo end qs ee ae -- ia 2 ° a pod a ~ . ian) jad mre a . > aa poi fan) Swot "4 " i ct a von , on an eo on, ne ww S on qed x P d ¥
a) nd he , . se ad te, ret Levin * te swt pad fe aa : "
. uv cy Cy tr id co) tad ord * : aston + nerd foal af pone on Foal rd pod = we soe bad a on ae . een 4 i iz me iad wu oo an 7 . al a) o ion 'eel a om peae oo o " ae nm ~ nee os x we a ts ae an ae oe ped oe pod proved adewt fas taken place, but the prosecuuion has "failed to prove Unat the accused persons. vopmnied thre *. fee i "
tee os $
--
rot fe os fhe absence of micteric al € vid THC oan HL, hie. absence of evidence which | prove s the < ile ged. gi gilt, the:
Court below was not 2 CORVE cting the accused. Considering the same the ap pe al dled by the setitioners herein is re HTK te be alic nye ed ae
18. LHe CPUS. a PREGL ' the petitioners IQ The Gs wigen sent of conviction in S.C UNG 0.9] {998 S passed by Hl. Addl. Sessions Judge, Seek sy "Ese d a 'en an bert Nae 93 3 ra a fe
m) oi rede me am an ee) t .
Vét Iw pe et on Pa es ws ve b aa a4 a ey aaa ~ oo.
tty 2 m oad c.
aot Pesce feet C3 "
jad as e "persous/ peunoner No.i and 2 herein are acquitted, a a on The bail bevicis stand cancelle Sd/-
JUDGE