Munegowda S/O Kenchegowda vs State Of Karnataka By Vemgal Police on 15 June, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Munegowda S/O Kenchegowda vs State Of Karnataka By Vemgal Police on 15 June, 2010

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

IDATED 'E'i'"i_iS T§"IE 15"" DAY OF JUNE 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BL£Z MR. JUSTICE, SUBHASH B. AI'3::'_ """  L. .

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.97?/2003 C /W CR:1IviIvI§AL:" 
APPEAL NOS.1015/2003 & 1095-/2903 _,  ,

Crl.A. NO.977/2003
BEIVVISEN

§\/EUNEGOWDA s/0 KEN(3HI3(}'"(3~WDA«" ' 

AGE ABOUT 53 YRS,   I  '

R/.0 CHAKARASANA1--IALI..1 
NARASAPURAHOBLI.     2 =
KOLAR TQ & DIST. V    V   '~.ﬁ ._...APPE1,LA.NT

[By Sri. A H E3I--I.A(3«W;' NflA:jv.'J    

ﬁg ____ ..
S'1'A'I'I31 or KARNA1'}xK;a  " =

BY VEM(}AI."P_C)f.I_CEi _ V .   
REP BY S'E'A'I"E }E_'UBL1C'PRQSF§{3'E.TT(')R
HIGH COURT B1;1.1,D1.Nc:s._ 
£3AN(}AI,()AR££~1 '  v  RESPONDENT

,j("By.sn. £3,"'}3m,.AKRrs1»INA'I:-ICC?) om = x V .13 13'1'v\/'r:.;_§.M;r;g' sR1.cr1A£§'I-JARAYAPIJA A j .-1»:-./C-..c:1~m<KA_QAN(;APPA Ac: E,DA:r3_ou'1' 58 Y1%',ARS R/;a.f1" 2";HAKKAIQASANAE-m1.,1..1 VILLAGIE NAI_~2ASA}='URA I~IO{{3I,l. K()I.,,AR 'I'AI,UE{ ' fj ;_<(:)I,AI~;: DIST. _ ...APPELI.AN"E"

'(I33/Ski. s sA'r1«~1YANA.RAYANA CHALKE FOR ' * A ~ ..4I,}?:X NEXUS. ADVS.) AN D 'i'I~-IE S'I'A'TI.3 OF KARNATAKA BY VEI\/iA(}AI.. P()i.-ICE S'I'A'I'ION V1*3MAGAl.

KOLAR TALUK. ... RE+1SPONDEN_'i,'V L :' A ' {By SR1. B. BALAKRISHNA HCGP. ) CRL.A 1095 g 2003 ESETXPV EEN: --

THYAGA @ THYAGAPPA @ MUNlSI~~IA..1\/IAPPA s/0 KRISHNAPI«'A. AGED ABc>u"z"'48 YEARS V R/O CHAKARASANAHALIJ VIL-LAGE --_ NARASAPURA HOBLI ' KOLAR TALUK 81 DIS'I'RIC'I'. H {By SR! B ANAND A:3v'.'2'Aj;ff.'. 2:

AND A A S'.l'A'I'¥£ OF KARN,A'i'A;rKA ii?-1 BY V1r::1\/:(i;A1;,1>(J_I,I_(:1?;~ . j __ RESPON{)EN'I' (By SW .13. E3Ai,AK.RISi"iNA---f31'('G'P.__)u CR£;.'A.9.77/2:{)'03VV"FELED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C. BY THE A1")VOCA'i'L?? FOR "TI--IIE', "A12I2£:.L1T,AN'1' AGAINST THE JUDGMP1N"i' :'vDT.V'iZ8.5C2OO-53" PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J.. KOLAR IN SC.NO. 829f3,V€ON\[iC7I"I_NG' .'lfHI§ APPELLANT.'/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFTENCESAA E}.-ii» R/W 307 [PC AND SEN'I'ENCi.NC: HIM TO [ENDERGCEA Si. ECUR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND TO ' 'V'z_v.PAY A FINE O_}<.;:*3\§':3."2,O0U/M [RUPEZES TWO THOUSAND ONLY], mg DE3FA"'L--JL'I'.-._':TC)'VUNDERGO FUR'I'H'E1R 5.1. FOR A PERIOD OF _ _SI'X.M(i)N'i'E»LS myz AN OFFENCE U/S. 114 R/W 307 IPC. x(i§AR!..,.A,1.01.5/2003 ITIEJIID U/S. 374 CR.P.C. BY THE A1)VQ(:A*1jE; FOR THE APPEI,LAN'I' AGAINST THE) JUDGMENI' DT.

2-8Aj.5.2*QO3 PASSED BY 'I'E§'£€ PRL. S.J.. KOLAR EN S.C.N(). 82/95. '€?ONVi{?TING THE) APPE3I..,I.AN'I'/ACCUSED FOR Ti-1133 OI*'I*'ENCES P./U/'SS. I 14 R/W 304 IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO 7 FOR A PI:?RiOD 01? 'i'H'REi£ YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE 01? RS. 2.000/-- (RUPEIES *rw(:> "i'f--ECDUSANI) oaxzm. am DIEFAUIJI' TO Ctmgress ('.andidat':e. However. the a(?CL.ised No. 1 was insisting PW2 and their family members to support Janatha Dal candidate. .111 this regard there was political €I1II1ii_\_!;.V}5&.1"'>'~.V' about 9.30 phi. on 23.i.E994. while PW2 had -1- at.tei'1d natur<:* 0211] outside the house. A(:(:Li:ee.d'~.. i\E'oV.l«A I assaulted PW2 with iron rod on his:=_hea:d, ?Ni3ei3._Tie>tie'!-tl__ down. he asssa.ult.ed on his cheek.gr'\.s5 .21 res.1__i1ti'. his ,Si}{'v€.(13t'U1S'§ broke and he become UI1C0}1SCiOLté}_'M\Vh€I']'f)W2"f€(i1QiV€d first blow. he shouted. PWv1[h.is n_iot:h'e"r}:.._;tr,id~--.t?W3 wife) came mnning. PW4 and PW5 also..ea1nie;"~.Seeing PW4 and PW5 and o:.hers. t:~i1'e~'««a§5cL:sied :;N9;*.'I 'thi*e--WVi_17_on rod and ran away. He alleged _t2h:«},t"Véie(:.L1ééd,Nos,-2 grid 3 instigated the accu N »

3. PW1«£°i--1e\.dt oo1"i*i§)l.é1iAnt p.m. on 25.1.1994 alleging that on .94 at V.é1b._oVL1Vt': 9.30 p.m. £1(,'.Ct.tS€d No.1 along with (seven) ()'[.ls'1€A§i't?3'AC?£B;}"I]6 to the house when her son who had gone.t.oi'__a1tit4en'd._izatufe call. Accused No.1 assaulted PW2 V with i1'()'i"?.-..1'Of.T;V.: '1he'ot:her accused instigated._ by Sh()U1iU1'}g 'do ' 1".ii<)t:."i5:z1.ve I-3VJ2.'. When conip1ainant.»PW} heard the shout of P'»3\./2:, t4}i'}€*.'i'£1I1 away to rescue her son, at that time. PW4 and " 'F''a'ﬁ.75_.r;;§ziIne., accused ran away by 1.hl'Ot.lghiI']§___§ the iron rod.

"'-File (:c)iiiptau'ria1i1,. her d'£iL}g]11,€i'"il'1~i£l.VV- PW3 took the '' injured to the hospital at Kolar and from t'.i1ere: to Ba11ggai()re. I Afier ret'.u1*ning from B2mgaI.o1'e on 25.1.1994 she filed the eompiaint. The said complain! was registered by PW14 ae per ix'.P..1 and PW14 went to the spot. eolieetled sampies (M03) and went" to I:3221'1gaE01'e cm -5 V record the statement, of PWI2. fI()\ve\re1f.»AAbVF'bV\/2 we'1s'_ position 10 speak. In this 1'eg;a'1'd. he ivy '. the cl()et,(.>r 10 that effect. On 27.1,.i9.94. he.;;ﬂ'es1ey::.i'A{;'::;1sed_V'§ .N0.2 znld 3. On 8.2.1994. PW2's .efa:.1.'e11':_eI11 T he1*eaf1ee1* statement. of PW 21139. V1'veeQr§iZ"e':dA on 1.2.1994. Accused No.1 was arrested oVhV_.'2.8. C)::1't:I5i_'e- of the volurllary stz11.e11:em.' the irc:'h 1;"0dVVw:as.:.fee()vered {M04} under the he filed the charge sheet.

4. The p1tose(:'ut.ion""Le pfé':sve its ease. examined PW} to 17 and I1'fga1*ked £Sx.P'1V_V_V1VL)V' 12 and pmdueeci MOS} 10 4. PW1 ~ ;'eQ11'ip1;1Aifiar1{' t_'h'e.._eyewit.r1ess. PW2 is the injured and PW3 who"-is ?Vw.l2 is also an eye witness to the incident. PW4 to i,n--depe:1der11 eye wiine.<3ses. PW8 to 13 are " wi1,:1e':2s:§e.s 110 maha.?.a.1's and PW14 ~ who II1Ves1.1'gating "V'C3f"£Fi(:z3f;-._P§EV15 cioelm' from NEVIHANS l"1Uspit.aI. PW4 to 7 . E _ $ T 1'1aye_t_a.z1*1'1ed h0sT::1e.

5. Trial Court. relying upon the evicience of PW1 10 PW 3 , PW14 and 15 held that. the 0'E'1'em'res Charged aga1i11si the 'c1CC.'L1St'.C.1 1\i0s. 1 to 3 is pmve<.'1 2'-mcl se1e11.er1(.ted Aceuseci N0. L.mcie1'g0 8.1 for 21 period 01'1hree years with fine of Rs.f2CGO_'/'~ -1~ V in defauit. E0 undergo S.1 for six" momhs For _*;1:e.--..éj'E'£ei"i~<{<:%«.A }'.)ur1isl"1;:1b1e 11/5 307 IPC. The 21(*(?t1se<i 1\}.c3s.i2. 1;-.1.1'1'c1_'3 'elite-.__ sentenced wiih E'.h1*ee years S.I. wii114_i"i1'1eo.€_' Rs.2OO~O}':--A each 1/ d to u1"1der go S.1. for six 111011i.11e c):;1'c-::::§;"¢e '14 1"/W 307 1PC. 1' V V

6. As against the judgnAie{i'ij_a'1Vi the ihree accused have filed iiii _V Counsel for Accused 1' S1-1.. am LEX NEXUS for Accused E.VlV'};}.'d$1"§..V vl't'%'_."4fC31" Accused N0. 1.. learned counsel for Accused N92 vi-.'»1.1'i.3v2.1'1i'i.f,e.'(1 '1'.hf('ii.._--._t.he inc:'dem. has 0(:cL1rred 211 9.30 p.m. on 21'.3.'1199-4; s'1'.a'1.ed to be an eye witness. PW3 is wife of and 5 are also si.':at"ed 1.0 be eye witnesses. 1*1<'i.w.eAVe§r';...«the C.O1T}}')1'c1i}"1I is filed on 25.1.1994 1.10 pm. "F1ir:1'eﬂis' no explanation for the delay in the (:0mp1ai1'11A The C()n1p1a;'I1aI11 slates 111211' she along with PW3 took the E1'1jL1:.'ed. to the Iiospilal at K01211' 'c1l'1d from Kolar to Bangalore zmcl she reiﬂurned from Bangalore. Whereas in the evidence PW1 --e<m'1pIa1'nz1111 81211.88 that CW4 and 5 iook the i11_ji.Il'(3CI on 8. scooier 120 the hospital in the village and f1f(V)£'_{'1>'._ there. they took. the injured 10 Koiar and from jt.hmere».f_'t--tji " ;. Ba11ga101'e and on the next day she went" 1,0 'the...h'0;sp'i.t.é1}A. From the ev1'denee PW~1. it is (11ea.:':;>1,I1ed_.T 1;1'1e_re' AW-21s'..n.§) in1pediment. for the eor.:1].)I21i1121V1,';';_'_\ to 201?; 23.1.1994 itself. PW 2 though No.1 to 3. in the erossWc2xvzih1i'11ati'bh_ has become Lmeonseious after the No.1. He does not know '.*.«'}1:21i:'*.«!%V/V§V¥_':s VPWB another eye Witness 3 that she and others teak the I-I&e."VVs"L1Vhn1it':ed that there is delay of 1ne"1fe Vfilhirlg the eomplairlt. The evidence of PWe1_4he1fea{,es 'd<§'ub_3;s as she is the Complaitlam _r'111d in t.12.e ciomplaiht",«she hz-ls stated {hat along with Accused 'No.1 «:<1&r1w(:i Six ofher accused had come to the house of (10111p1'z;i1ian1'.'*;;I,;iciVhi;1_ €)'_1.11nibL.1s s1atemen1.. she has alleged that Vdll 1,heX(i3__ Ot}1e}'.aecL1TSed i1'1sl.igat.ecI the accused No.1 and there "U0 spe'eiI'i"e overt aeis aiieged against any oi" t.her}1. Iii(3%.2a}*€:x{e1'.."}ehe crliarge sheet. is filed 21ge1i1'1st" Aeeused N01 tc)-*3. .I_h':1he% evidence of PW1 has not alleged any i1'1s1'.iga1,io11 by AC{T1,1S€d No.5,; 2 1.0 3. what is alieggeci 1111211" they were present 9 iioi. but the evidence of PWi to PW:-'3 Cleariy Show that such i1isi.ig2ii'.i<m is af_t:er accused not ass;-1u}i:ed. aileged ilistigation aftei' {he oi"i'ei1ee is (ronimiiieci wiii noi 21zn()Lim' io E1b€'iI11VE'i1i_'I"'.

1..1iicie.r seeiioii. 11.4 01" II-"C. The evidence of PW2 (:a1i";i'i'oi..'ui3ej' reiieci upon. He admits that he became Lii1(:()r1SCiV()_'t.isVahci furihei' oiiiy 2'.1}}ege,:'s i'.h21i'. A2 and A3 \.=vcfi'e preé.3ez'ii_. }5W3_ 'éii7.,S2vO'H does not speeifieaiiiy eiiieges any ()\.{e.if'i' acri.'~--iii'iu1"11 shit. s{ia'i;es}'. that I-'W2 was assaulted and 'ihei-ee1i;f'eij:.the accused --N()..i',i() 3 shouted.

11. Evidence o.{7PWi to is-Anioi' é";ifii'oieh.i to prove the offeiicte. L1!1Cit'IfV:§i~.'»'€f(E1;i'5.V«£')'1'iV i_I'4 iiijzéd wVith"3O'7""of IPC_ there is ciiiiehi1'ig and cie:ci1":ev;i§:1e1iee the participation of ihe aectused No.2' V 'é..e7id V'3.» motive is aiieged againsi a(.2(',USE?d No.2 a.1f1ci»3. "T1'1"C;i1g.i1 "'i---.r_1(ie_peIiden'i'. witnesses naniely PW4, have been V_eVXé1.1i1iVi'1ed. but. they have not. supported of hi=osecuiio11. Except the evidence of PWi to PW3 .U'i.'E'§1'€Ai'f:7»:"]"_(vJ evi.riei1(te to prove the Charge agziinsi these VV'V'ciC'(I{ES_SE'.C1".'<.. PW ' is L0 and PW I5 is a Doctor. The entire H :7eiv__itieif1c;e ()f*.i.he pi*ose(:1ii:ion is not sufi'ieie'ni. to prove charge ELga'ii:}S€~._l..I_i.1:e accused No.2 and 3. H '12. Learned counsel reiied on the decision of the Apex. Coiiri. reponed in AIR 1.974 SC 45 in ihe Ca.ES€ of JAINUI- A "-'.3_«1i('SEi(.)£'}S imve been pm E0 2111 the E~1(}('.L1$f5(:'d. HAQUE'. vs STATE; OF' B1HA.R and sL1bmit't.ed that to convict the zieeused for £?.ibC'.'{,II1€l'}L there should be dear. Cogent and reliable ex.-icie1'iee and not on the basis of surmises aiiti eonje(:§L11'es.

13. S1'i.8.Andr1d._ iearned CoL11'1_sel __21pp_eai'i9i'i"1g_".i'oi* . accused No.1 submitted that. the exrideiiee o:'f'PW~2ii~: ir1jiireVd:"ie---.. is not aeeepiabie... as according 1.0 i'ii_.1"I's---_V\V1'iilCv.h€ hac1'_g,Ao1'1e.._i,o attend the nature eaii, aeeiised became unconscious. It (:ouiei poi possibie for the PW--2 to notice as .';owhoass.e1i111'edaZgiiei"':.iiei'--.i.;;eider1t' has taken piaee 21E "1"i1::e{§\ to wheiher there was ii.g.1ii He further subrnitieci f'1ii211'.,_ no opportunity before the trial court to'Gross-eX:»1iiiiiie:_<{ﬁe"riiaterial witnesses nameiy PWs»i to Tiiciogh wivas sought, the trial} court did not L21i'i'oi'd. giii r);):1'§ﬁ§):'i;VL1';.1ﬁii'y and has passed the j'LldgII1€I]1'.. In this 1"egz1':*ci;«.ii1e{A Oi?-,,-~i"]ET observation made by the trial court. Vin the exI_ide2i1(:Lr_vo'i' AP\/Vs-1 1.0 3. He also sL.1bmiti:ed 1hEit'.. the ' i."Viéi';aVl';ea1A1'1e1"1Es miciei' Se.eti01i 313 of C:*.I'.C. are not re,eorded by 1'Jue1t"i'.-i1"i'g_ s.pe(*ifi(' quesiioiis as regairi to the i11('.l'il'i]i1"1I:1I.iF}g 'Cireuii':st.211'1(:e against the iiiclividizai E':CCL1.S€d and genera? Sar1'1e is eo1'1i1'a1'y to the provisions ofSeeiior1 313 of C1'.P.C. that, I-3Ww2 was seriously injured and he was moved from one hospital to ariother and PWWI Could not file Complaim; h()w'eve1'. i11s()far as accused §\los.2 and 3 are (:()ncemed. C11a1'_2_;e fl';-zzmeti by the trial Court. is t'.h£1E'_ they abetted l,h.:§"-. ()fi'e11Ce and {he ()ffence is alleged under Section 114 ' Se(rE.i()1'1 1 14 of EPC reads as E.tI1C1(?1'Z "114. Abettor present wheftm" ojfen.ce ._ committed. --~ Whenever any person, 3 whoa.' if absent would be liable to be pL:m'slf1ec:l as ._an_ . abeuor. is present' when 1.l:;'e.4_o:cl:' or oj,{}ierzcel"jo.='_ whioll he would be pur1isl'1able"i~z'1 conseque.;j2c"e_ the. abetimertl, is eommL'{'l:'ed. he usilhall be deemed to} have committed such act or of/aer--2:;ev.--'_' " " * "

'Abetnlexlf is defined under Se(:ﬁio11l'i.O?' 0_:§7,_lPC:;~which reads as urlcierz "1 O7} a'~t_li'ir;g.~.'A person abeis the doing "Qfa4l.hi11g. who "

F1'rsl.-- Ir1sLigat'es a-r__1y';.jJerson to do that lihlng: or l_ _ Engages..wiih one or more other person V ' .or""persons' ~:'1_1 any conspiracy for the doing of thal. ' _Lhi11g.»_§]'~an_ act: or illegal omission takes place in p.plr's'Lla%*cCe of.Vtj'haltl Conspiracy. and in order to me '*oloin;g of :.l'ia1.:£.l1fr1g: or S,73Cis)11g1lLl;y . V V lale11ll.oro1ally aids. by any act, or illegal omi.ssz'orI, the doing oflhal thing.

1"n.c51-Ade1= to 21t.'1,1'a('.I', the provisions of Section} 14 of IPC. there f1'ms1..fbe am 21bet'.r"r1en1,. Ab:-:l,11'1ent as defined 'unde1' Section '1 of IPC. 21 pe1'so:n. who ir1st.iga.1:es other person to do that thing. In this case. the fi1'S'E. explanation even if it is applied. the c:\ridence of PW}. who is the Complainani. is not (.'o1"1sist(;:'.ni. Cx.PI is the COI1"1pidi1'1t and PW91 being an witness to the in(:ident. howexrer. in the Complaint 5 . alleged that. acctusod N031 and 6 other ac(:1.ised ('::;:n1¢"'Vt.oVi_.h'e_ h()1."i!-36.' and i11sE',igzited. in the (.:o1i1:p}ai1_1t.' f, no '1 S'p€;("ji-[i'C_ H allegations or overt act are a}}eged,;n_o itidi"-Jiduai oveft. abt.' a}1.eged.. much loss against. the ac:(7L1sErd"N().2 and_3'.* -- 15 In evidence aisovpxvﬁir"1..s'tg'to,S:. étttsused N032 and 3 had come to that by itse1i'may not att.t1':att:tt 114, under Section 1i V51" accused at the ptace 0;' (3v§'{'5,nC31 is ptlnishabie. The evidence of 15w{"1.m" compiaint: EXP} do not show ti1e;n;o.tive a's:_é1gdinsi': the accused Nos.2 and 3. To '2itt..'Vr:'aCt',itfizr: of Section 1.1.4 of IPC. the prosecution must 1:3:'<)V1r.'vv1.ifi';1Vt.V tiii€..a'(:(:t.1sed Nos.2 and 3 had motive and at Zheii' il;i§3t'aI]{T€:.Ii.i51€ accused No.1 Committed the offence. I"h<_)V'tre:ver, Ehrj: "evide1"1ce and the pi'ose(2ut.ion metterial Show t'h.z'1't, t.i*1.«:é_:uét(éc:t.isc7d No.1 had at motive, PW#2 had filed :1 "'(:as.c__}agai1'1st a(.'.Ct1S€d No.1. no spe(:ii'ic aiiegation against "-':1t.':€t,1S€d Nos.2 and 3. prosecgtration has utteriy failed to prove the offence uoclor Section 114 of IPC. PW--2 in the cross- It) the complaint Exi.i-"1. she being an eye witness to the €'.Xai'i'1i11a1,i()11, he speeificaiiy admits that.._ after the assauli on his head, he became mieoiiseioiis and regained conscious oniy ai"t.e1' two monthss. it is not possible to accept tii:e"»e evidence of PW2 as io whether he had noticed 'c1l§f:'L'I"eE.'Se'.Ij,' , A' N0s.2 and 3 or not. whether he heard any iiist,igat:.ioiialiegedé I to have been macie by the accused N0-si.;2 anti' 3."«_Fti1'"ther. x§«11'"j the cmss-examiiiatiori. he does not eilleg-_:;e"..a1iiy aii';etI"aiei1t'"; . except st.at,ing t:ha':, accused N052' 3 accused No.1 assaulted. 1-émaiiis, is of PW~3. PW?) also does not'speeiificaiiy overt. act.

against accused    iiiotive. The
prosecution   F'Wsw4 to 7 as

iiidepeiideiit t.he._"0'i'i'eii(:e against. accused Nosi to been treated hostile and nothing has been" i';'v?1i('iVit.E"C'i'A'il'I their cr0ss--examinati0n. If this _evidenc;e_§: is Oi"I1it.1,€tj;..Ih€ only evidence remains is of PWs--8 Ito PVV is ~33 neither are eye witnesses nor they speak oi ,,,.{}i"3' iAi'1ci"c£ei'it,"'-they are witnesses to support the

1)2111(:hnan1a.. .sei2:Lii'e mahazai' and spot. mahazar and their 3fj»-<eir'i-dence i'ig1i"ti1y is Of any assistaiiee is the pm.~:-iecuf.ion. to ' '--.;3"i'*o_\2r;-._bt:h'A_r: agaiiisi. accused N0s.2 and 3. Even the

--.e'vic1e?nce of PWs--! to 3'. PWw is evidence being c.0nti'adict.0ry ix i1'1<":id<3nE. she has not C'Xp1.'€li}'}C'C} as to why only actcruseci Nos.2 and 3 were c:11:;11'ge--sheeted. when {.119 other accused n1ont.i()m*.d in the Complaiiit. PW14 111v<3si',igai.i11g Officer also 1101 (:'Xp1E}.i1'1(.'d the same. FL:1'ther ovoid élgzimst, a(,'{~'.~L1SS'€~d L"

Nos.2 2:11'1d 3. she has not mention63d any abei.11'1eni,_. "?,W"-A3"~-- w'iI"e oi" PWw2 anoiihor eye wit.ness.:"shé"does n'o--1.._.aIso "'V speztifically ment.io1'1 any ()V(:'1'[ act. AllhthéuW'ii.11os's;.es' »()n1y'--._"'~ speak of presence of accused Nos.._2'"'~and 3'; V'£'o_ ""Lhe case. prosecution has io adduce Lhe_.e\fider1c_c. xv}1i'c:h._iAsVciear and clinching to hoid the acs.r._',_1i"5e(i--'_Ng.g;..2"£1iid"3guiliy of an oﬂbnce of abeimem. punishabie i;1r_1dé_f Secﬁoij' V14} read with Section 307 of_IPC'., £'i'oniif1<ie-4o§i.§iije.1']oe"jis' iI1S'L1fﬁ(?i{i3'3T to hold t.11o"aioC'L1s.:g-d 3 of an offence of abetment, i.131::1'é._i.sV no nic1.V:ve_.a*11,e"ged against accused Nos.2 and 3. it is oizlv "s1V1gges~f.jed'~.--in the CI'OSSvf3XaI1'1H1£1UOI1 of V.pI*e_VioL1:é 'Wood byV'ao9.'1..1.si3d 110.2. W. a.sj'-accused No.1 is concemed. complainant speic__ii'icavii3,'.Vaikeged that, there was an enmity befwceii i.'[a;:_o{ssed No.-1. "and PW~2. PWv2 in his €;'Vid€.I1(.'.E'. has stated

1.'11Tai'.., iie _Ié'21d ﬂied a Complaint. against accused No.1. as he 1'".aVd _e§ssau}.ied his mmher PW--I and acctuseci No.1 was VA '~in.sisting for withdrawa} oi"1,he said Further 't:h<~:1'e was also po1ii.i<':a1 enmity. as PWv2 had not supported the Janata I6 Dal party, which was supported by accused No.1 and PW-2 zimd their fan'1ily members supported the Co1'1g1'ess Candidate in assembly election. Motive is specriﬁctally alleged by PWs?j.~_<' and 2. Complaint. also disclosed the moiivc. PWs~l_.__ ;'2'"2'ul1l_c1--..._l:_': ' 3 are consis1.e111 as rega1'd to the overt. act alle.ged.,.a"g§ai11st . the accused No.1. PW~1 being a 111o1.lie1' and jj.E:lcideAn'£--. h'as.._ taken place outside the house of;P_W~1, l§I1medial_.e'ly.al1.er hearing the shouting of PW-2. out the accused No.1 ass2111ll'i11g:PW~2_fllmfhils.._Vis:lalso ctovllsisltent with {he evidence of PW-3, she also came rL.1n1'1i1'1g PW--2 and immediately she' ?Ws-4 and 5 also came t.he1'e;l' llll yviilrllessllland has not. only alleged the lixoilivic bdll a1.§§§A..§ip§c:l1':(:a31y alleged {he overt act elgainst 8(T(?L1'.:"1Cd'NO;__l.A~,T1}€I'€ is no discrepancy in the V.ev'ide11ce"e>.l" I?_'Ws;1 tol"3.v....?.Wsv1 and 3 being eye witnesses, PW_--2 ,.ljei--.r1g_;~.i41{§s;1°ed' witness. the ve1'acii:y of their evidence has not been sliaj1«:e§"1 in 1;l1e1'r c1*oss~examination.

18. lflsclal' as opportunity to accused No.1 to cross» F,le.xa'm:l1_mc l"{'Ns-1 to 3 is concerned. trial court by a detailed order has observed that. accused No.1 was given ll'».o_;jj:)()r1'1mi1.y to c1'oss~examinc PWs--l to E3, l.l'lOl1gl'1 PWl to 1~I-"W3 were p'resent., accused No.1 did 1101 cross-exa11'1i.nc i7 them, on the ground that he had ehamged the lawyer. court granted tiine to the aeCt.1sed No.1. When another lawyer appeared ibi' 2u.'Cused No.1, he also did not Choose to (.'.I'OSS~".._ examine E-'Ws~1 to 3 though they were present Li;'i(l.'L:"...' thereafter he {ﬂed memo for re1,iremem,. Three t:in1_es~-- PWs= .1 to 3 were summoned for ctrciss-exaniinatioii 'Qy--»a__e'e.Lis'ed«. N0. 1. Despite time was given 1.0 accused No.1. a.e't:L1Sed.__N0.Vi.V for one or the other reason had not chosen_ 1e_(:ross§'exzimine "

PWs--1 to 3. It is not the (:ase 'i>Vh£'t5._V op'pO1'1,t.mii.y'wasnet given and accused No.1 is d€I1yiIig.._'1'1iS rig'm«A1i0" crQss-- examine. no doubt, he is an; .é:.e<itus;ed-, he sl"1iO1..'1ld be giV€I1 21 reasonabie opportunity. BL1!.whiaV1_ the order of the iearned 1,1ié;iAi;'.' \Veis"Va"'deIibera1i:e act' on the part: of aecus-e'd"NOL 1 '1TilC«{.V"10 'ic.1,'_0's.swexamine PWs--I to 3. PWs-- 1 10 3 are the imgiterial'.wi'LIiesses and for one or the other v,1-'6ﬂ$()I1._i~5§'.VS--'_Ai 19 3 v{rere..__se.:v1t back three times without any (?l"'().1SSi§?X;lI11i'f1vtiE.iOE]in' This aspect has been recorded by 1'.h'e vleamed 1'fFi'al LIL[.?j:é';€IAi,:: In t.hese circumstances. it is not 21 Case ofdeniz-11 'o1id'pp()V:'i.uiiii.y, but it is a (22188 where amused No.1 h;'-i"§§~3"}Ct" en:->b.0se1'i to erossmexamine PWs--} to 3. V 39. In 2:1 case where prosecrutien has led the evidence '».Q'['Ji'11j'l1I'€d wiiness, eye witnesses and the evidence of PWs~ I. = 10 3 being c:1im.'.hi.ng and clear as far overt". act. by accused M' No.1 (.T(.)I1CE?1'I'1€'d eottpled with the evidence of PW~E-4 - the I11\rc7sLigett.i1'1g Oiﬁeer. who 1"e.gist:e1'ed the Case. took up the im-restigat;i0n and filed the ('.h€t1'g€ sheet and fL1I'1hCI' evidence of PW~15 - do(.'.E.o1'. who treated evidenos proves the guiit of accused No.1 of punishable tmdet' Seetiorl 307 of 113C.

of (:o11viCt.ion insofar as accused V;'\.'o_."1 not call for tnt4er§'erer1ee. However, as and 3 are Cotteemed, E'}1e:vt:1'i~2t_i the of evidence of PWs--1 to 3 accused N032 and 3, e\'e11§~t.hott;:_'»;-h to 3 do not pi'ojs-::e"t1.tivLV.11htgcztse as regard to Clittcthirtgly Sil1f:"IpO1¢i-'.t eibetmettt. 't"1"(')"t'1.Jt:oa*.-?'e "27l:§e.t1&t1e11t'.,uhevtcienee must. be elear. ch'11ch1'ng aﬁd $1'1bVSt,ai1"tiaE,"1'1.Qf"-Qﬁﬁthe basis of surmises and conjeet.t.1re. Co~:11p1atnt:._ d~ftseIo'ses 7 accused and 6 other V.~éteet1se:i"}113e_t'ed_the o'i'E7e.nr.:e'._ whereas the evidence of PWs~} ::=,._3 shows 'vo1:ii3.f'tv.wt3..accused. There is no consistency in the V exzicleneevoi' I3Vv"s;-- 3.

20. lh___tf1tese ei1*cumstan(:es. when the prosecution has ' "not._Aes.ta§lished the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against. Nos.2 and 3. 1 find that they en.t,i1,Ied for ~ ...é.i:quit,t:aI.

Accordir1gly, C1'1.A.N0s.977/2003 and 1015/2003 are allowed. The jL1dgI11er1i dated 28.5.2003 passed by the Pr1.Sessions Judge; Kolar in S.C.N0.82/.1996 Ens<>i'a1i..;i;9_ .__ acnrused N082 and 3 are concerned. is set: asicie. BaET"b(m d..___" :.- stands cliscrharged. Crimmai Appeal No. 1095/ alccused No.1 fails and same is disznisséd.

WE' KNM/--

.. 9%

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court