K M Venkatareddy vs State By Kencharlahalli Police on 29 July, 2010

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K M Venkatareddy vs State By Kencharlahalli Police on 29 July, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE men coum 0;' KARNATAKA, 8ANGALORE»._: ._V'

DATES THIS THE 2913* DAY OF JULY, 201$" ' ;v-Q  s. A' 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEE N:,,.fX NA4?%IjA.'  " 

CRIMINAL APPEALj'N_C}.13 €%.8'l 2003    Q"  

BETWEEEN

1.

K. M. Venkataxtcidy V S/0 Maddimdéy

2. Ravi@Kotto}}aA§2avi "

S/0

3. K. V. Kris3ii§af£z1:£i$i;"'-.

S/0 Pcdgla 'Jgnkagarayappa ~

4. K. V.:':sh1ye_iiﬁe:_Shiva§£eady ; S] o Péddavenkatézayagpa' ' _.

S.    S 
K.  Naxasjmﬁnappa

' .S;'o (}9rLa"By1"s;2ppa
7}   
S;,.-79 Yamaxj;-ﬁdy

 -  :3. Anazidef

" Sig Vémamddy

.' 9:.' -   Venkatamddy

 Gopaiappagari Venkatareddy
'" S/0 Gropalamcidy



1G.Fak;ruddiz:1
S] 0 Basha Sab

11.K. C. Venkatareddy
S] 0 Chikkanmezyanappa
12.K. R. Kittamzma
S] 0 Ramanna

Allare r/a Kambaiapaﬁi   " V V _

Village, Chintamani Taluk .L'.._APPELI.;ANTS (By Sri. c. N. Raga, fie'-;;9cate."'fd1~:'j4S.V--»"e'Shan1§é1i*a§)iVj;)a and Associates, Advocates) ' "

AND:    '

State by   Z: _ V. 
Police, Repmiéexzted b'y~'..s,  _ 
High Court Buileiixlg   '
Bangalore . ' '*I::.  "  RESPONBENT
{By 811'. CGP)

The     under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

_ by the, Advocate fer' the appellants against the Judgement "tiateéi 7.';?~.v2oe.3 passéa" by the :1 Addl. District am S.J., Keiar, $311 'S.I-'I,5.C.C.No.41/2000 convincing the appellants] égtzeused vfcx thepftlances punishable under Sections :48, 324 andaéz V1"~e:sic_1.3.vi§3;1' 149 ofIP(3 and sec. 3(1)(x) of sc/ ST (POA) Act:/W 169 of EPC and sentencing there to undergo SJ. _ for a"peri€>d'cif one year and pay a ﬁne of Rs.1,(}(}0/- each 1.3, (Sf payment of ﬁne to suﬂer further 83. for two 4 .iﬁee.ths fair the oﬂenee punishable under Section. 148 read "with Section 149 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo SJ. _ e._fGr 3; ofthme years ané pay a ﬁne of Rs.3,0€)O/~ each "'am;i 1.11). of payment of ﬁne to suffer furt}:}.er 3}. far three months for the oﬁence punishable under Section 324 read Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergc: S3. for a -3- period c>f3{} days and pay a ﬁne of R's.300/- each and ¥.D, of payment of fine to suﬁer further S3. for 15 days for the offences punishabie under Secﬁon 341 read with Section 149 of IPC and further sentencing them to umiergo 8.3. fc__:-I a period of three years and pay a ﬁne of Rs.3,()(}{)/~« each. _a1;d 1.1). of payment of ﬁne to suﬁizr further S.I. for three A' far the oﬁence punishable under Seeticm 3[1)(X_}f'of {POA} Act lead with Section 149 of IPC. It is 1 "

that the substantive sentence shall run coz1sec11tj§%e}yV.~V._:' _ This Crl. Appeal coming on court deiivemd ihe foiiowing:

JUDGMQNT The appellants 1 ti ar1'*éijrex§vg:'§a.sVV'V'é;ee11seﬁvE105; 1 to 12 (hezeinafter referred to ae t1o"_V__12) were tried and comﬁtitcd £331' ef€'enee$'V"'puniushaB41e under Sections 143, 147, :43; 323,' section 149 IPC and 3330 for oﬁences_Vi3t3tﬁ$,¥}e1¥;}e'«.:.;Liz1der Section 3(1) (X) of the V. &_ Scheé;.11eei' aggggl. Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 'f'hefe.tb:e, bef-are this Couri.

2., $13.. brief the case of the prosecution is as foilows:

" AA ﬁceixsed 2103.1 to 12 are residents of Kambalapalli and they are came Hindus. Prosecution Witnesses " iiéimely P.W. 1 -- Shanicarappa, P.W.2 -~ Naxasimhappa, P.W.3 JU. .

-5- with Section 149 IPC. In the CO1],I".5€ of the same accused 1 to 4 had uttered ﬁﬁn 6' e,iin&c~H' " '

62.)' "-':3""5:'ML5'-2'-r'¢a.g 665 0~5v5T" ": 'wﬂ?°?° A ; with an intention to insult and huméliaﬁt P,.'W.S."1 (Within the Vi€W of the public) . n_;:;s. 12 committed offences punisha1§§i<:%: §m;1;er Vsegﬁmés #'::g(1)(x) 0:' the Act mad with sec'£io1i:_.1"'%i~9 _

3. The is stated asfeiiows: _ ' V_ V p.m. P.W.1 had gone to tcmcier coconuts. At that time, accﬂiseéi n§s;'--1: on a mator cycle. Accused I1o.1""§;\:%3.ssL..riding?'1:1@é m($ior cycle in such a way to dash his P.'Ws.i and 2. P.Ws.} and 2 moved ALa*s;id:; questioned accused I and 2 about their high'«4._ha;§'(i(:::;iA.:'~V'&cts at that time accuscé nos. 1 and 2 are ':a1k:ged..m.«V}:1ave abused P.W. 1 8:. P.W.Q by taking the name of A ffcastez. This occurrence teak place near dargah of : _.Y¢§111Ima1apady village. After F.Ws.1 aﬁd 2 returned to their 43 -5- village accused 1 to 12 are alleged to have committed_..§hc aforesaiéi offences.

Accused I to 12 pleaded not guilty. On A V- prosecution P.Ws. I to 16 were exan3jned__and"€ioc'u:it;eﬁi'L3'_'aVs per Exs.P.1 to M: ami M.Os. 1 am:

behalf of the defence acc1:sec1"TV1"*--~axnd "2'~v§:'<:rt3 .5asA Ii).Ws.1 and 2 and documents were marked.

4. The learned ge leézneé counsei for both Vﬁiidence on recozd held the:__accueeci".£~.. of afozesaéd offences and convicted 1 to 12 for' offences punisI}ab}.e uﬁae: _Sect:io1';1s .143, 324, 341 read with Section « 1"49 IP.C'. oﬂence p1m1's}:1a¥:)1e under section .A;;;::'.:~ead with secticm 149 IPC. Accused 3 to 12 were to undergo simple imprisonment for a gzeriod ofjfnxee years and pay fine of Rs.3,{)00/~ each Xviih» sentence for an oﬂence punishabic under Section V. : 3(__1?){x) of the Act. Accused 1 to 12 were sentenced to fundergo simple ixnprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3,(}{)0/=- with defauk sentence for an oﬁence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused 12 were sentenced to undergo imgrisonment for . pay ﬁne of R3300/~-- each, in defau_1_t...Qf__payfeieiitliof Io, " ll suffer further simple imprisonment 'for days fo1*"oﬁ'e::':;x_:e'5::;_' punishable under Section read The learned trial Judge held leentejnce of impﬂsonment shall run V eol§'~3ec'--i1':i$:e1j*: ~._ _' » l " ' . o _

5. i have for accused 1 to 12 M--.*;1jez§ge,_ learned Government Advecafe for ' » l ' ll'

6. Dis eeongideréitliozlilofllllzldings recorded by the learned zidge Vlxavlne been assailed in this appeal, I V. "following points for determination:

A ';l.:_ "E'§g'}1et}l{{:rV.ll;l1i%§V'}§:ltt}s3e<:ution has proved that on 30.3.2000 at laboufe p.131. near the house of one Balappa in AA Village accused nos. 1 to 12 had formed «indie an unlawful assembly thereby committed an offence yunishable under Section 143 IPC?

-3.

2. Whether the prosecution has yroved that the accused E to 12 being the members of unlawfui assembly abused P.Ws.1 and 2 (persons beitmging to Scheduled Caste) by taking name of their caste with an intention to insult humiiiate them within the public View " V. committed an offence punishable uneier Seetidnii 3{I}V(:§§) the Act 1"/W seetien 149 1130.?

3. Whether the yroseeution has proved__ of "

common object of the "I1e>.1 assaulted P.W. I ---- a elub, ..aecused no.2 assauited a club, accused '.n0.8 Q 1" with a stone and the other accusedﬂsted thereby accused nos. 1 to 12 Aoffenee: gunishable under Sectien 324 read Vs 'wttiz sg§;;tj.§n.._149 IPC?

._ \?J%_.1VetE;e'f~v,,b%¥iI1eVv"vtéiccused 1 to 12 in furtherance of the c6«3:em.e'n etiject of the Imlawful assembly in the course <31' .A the same transaction have wrongfully restrained P.Ws. I " 2 thereby accused 1 to 12 committed an oﬁence N' CA-% OL""

-9.

punishable under Section 841 read with Section 149 I PC?

5. Whether the learned trial Judge has ggroyerly appmeiiérted the evidence and Whether the impugnec': j11§.g£3_¥.B{%"}'lVT.!:"

for interference?

6. What Order?

7. The fust information was_ on 11.3.2000 with 'emthamani'V"%"r%§;rnVV P§ii¢e'..":S§;:ti§-in. On. perusal of the contents P.W.1 has not slated any of accused 1 to 3.2 had insumi of their caste with public view. The et1€i<>rse1¥1'e1gt" 11V1a{;¥.e f,i;€"'§iivestigating Oﬂicer does not disc1cs:e.. the 'ééffexxeevs fer Qvhich the first informatiicm was P'f9weve«1§%f}:e First infonnation Report prepared 111145 :1".f:;4 C£.P.C. (not marked: before the trial w~:)u1€1': that iihe investigating officer on the basis ' 9f the fir_et':.ir:fozn1ation Edged by P.W'.2 had registered Crime A f!VFﬁ,4e:"'5'f.2000 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 323, 324, 341 rear} with 149 we and also for gm ' Q (Bk-'~""¢'£2\' offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. There is no material on record to show that the Iavestigatia_5g*.,"

Oﬁieer had recorded further statement of P.W:;--1 ' preparing the First Informaﬁon Report 154 (3§.P.C. In oniier to appreciate ';CO§C1d1A.1<'.:t,' Investigating Oﬁeer, it is necessary to "extlact (3r.P.C. which reads as under: _ Informatioxj (1) Every information re]ati1;g to 'the"'co1'ii;ftission of a mgnizaaleioﬁencie, oﬁcer in charge station; reduced to writing: eiiiection, and be c*:e§f_ti:e "i_t_i}To_1jmat1t; and every such infozmation, in writing or reduced to as such shall be siwed by it, anet the substance thereof V. be..¢nter¢"at"i;1 a hook to be kept by such " Vt form as the State Government . * in this behalf.

V ' ' A copy of the information as recorded uilder sub-section (1) shalt be given forthwith, A ; 'free of cost, to the informant.

: (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an oﬁcer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-- We Cgacwaﬂt -11- section (1) may eend the substance of infonnation, in writing and by post, to Superintendent of Police concerned "ii satisﬁed that such iziformation, _e§isc1o.ses'* 4' commission of a cognizable offence, shall "eitherv. f investigate the case ixivestigafzion to be madie._Vi)3tV_az1y."po1iceiofﬁitfer"

subordinate to him, in the piovided iziy this Code, and suehﬁ oiﬁeer have ail" the powers of an ofﬁcef eeﬁargei ; police station in relation «V " ii i in V iziformation lodgeé by P.W.1 ax. ieb_oi1tii"$'i+E1Q_ pj11..:"o:%1'1-.1V:_..:§.2ooo with the Sub» Inepeetoij of 'I' own Police was transferred "to S11b?Ineip;ectoi_.~eVof Police, Kencharaiahalii police statio1;_§i§9'1t1o reigisiefed: the ﬁxst iI1f0I'I]13ﬁ0}1 report for ioﬁfehces. As alreaeiy stated the investigating ieot any other materia} apart from the ﬁrst _ ixiforinaﬁoii zegister the crime for oﬁences punishable 'i""'o-..ii:1-my eeeiion 3(1)(x) of the Act. Therefore, ; ﬁnd at the of registration of the case the investigating officer not betrayed his honest intention. IV' xi ,_____9\ K-'--£f\.

8. P.W.1 has not deposed that the accused 2105.1 to 12 abused him by touching the name of his caste with 'an intention to insult him. On the oiher ham}, deposed accused 1110.} alone abused kiln that ' person belonging to Scheduled CastVeAAMh'ad '_t;'é:¢1e quarrei with caste Hindus.

P.W.2 has not deposed ..a<:c1A1.§:~'.t;*:-::i. 'nos:'.v_1 'VV1"25or anyone of the accused amongsgc-A-VV:i'VL_:tokkj12'1§ac1--.ab€1sed or insulted P.W's.1 and 2 their caste.

P.W.3 was ¢_§da«t;1inedV'{o' but he has not ﬂ1e..'uoi"osecutio13..

«hé1s-- the case of the pmsecuﬁon. Vb..as§".:1e'ni%ed that the accused has abused 2 by ta1{ii';g'out the name of their caste. P.W.4 and was subjected to c:ross-exami:oation by.'iheV«pul51ic:'j_{$f£b;secutor. Duzing cross--examination, P.W.4 C1:1as 'that even before the date of occurrence there V' "..fWeis'Teomi1Vfy between caste Hindus and persons beionging to ~c.T.'.~s;::;¢di;1e Caste in Kambalapaiii Village. m.,' P.W.5 is alleged to have Wimessed the has not supported the case of the prosecution. _ " V P.W.6 has deposed that accused 1 & P.W.1 85 P.W.2 and abused. P.Ws.

name of their caste. P.W.6 4_ give11 e= regarding the words uttered for and 2, The version of is {ﬁe case of the prosecution or consieeehjt P.W.2.

P.W.7 who the oecunence has not 12' or anyone abused Ewe. 1 their caste.

egidence. P.W. 10 had deposed that A} afiusing P.W.1 8:. if-'.W.2 1'11 ﬁlthy . «iangfiaigeieaiiing the name of their caste. » .eon__ of the evidence of P.W.1(}, 1 ﬁnd the leariﬁhed has omitted to record the words said to

--Vhave%bee:z 1.1tiered by A1 and A8. Therefore, the evidence of {hat the accused 1103.1 and 8 abused in ﬁithy calling by the name of their caste is not helpful to T " the prosecution.

-/xmﬁx -14- PW. 13 is alleged to have witnessed the eeeurrenee, he has not supported the ease of the prosecution.

9. Thus, I ﬁnd that {he evidence addueed.' . prosecution to prove that the accused to 12'_--'hé1'é* u "

offences punishable uxzder Secﬁon 3'{:1){);)"

discrepant. In the first lodged by stated that accused nos. 1 to or any persen by taking out widtdn public view. The inveeﬁgaﬁng VA an offence under Section" is no reference to acts epnstitL1'di1g"3eidb'6effe1;ee the first izlfomaation. The learned this glaring discrepancy has accused 12: guilty of offences punishable under of the Act. Therefore, the finding of the holding the accused guilty of oﬁences _ punishable ﬁﬁider Section 3(1)(x) of the Act read with secﬁon. IPzC'.=---eamrxot be sustained and therefore I answer point 1 the negative. av. I

10. As alreaéy stated and as admitted by P.W.6, Kambalagzaili Viiiage was a facﬁon ridden village. There was enmity between. caste Hinéus and peopie be1o3:1g;%1i§'*.eto scheduled caste. The occurrence is said to have "

on 10.3.2000 at about 6.09 pm. near the :of 'o;f1e ' Balappa of Kambalapalli Viiiage. *r:::;é"'£::~st._ i11fo:*mtgt£oIzVVxx?£as lodged at Chinthamani Town Police it" "

received by jurisdictional po}ice,'=ﬁnd gm the_:e{%i§ieﬁce of "

P.Ws.1, 2 and other eye-.--.wfitnes3"'ih§é;'i visited Kambaiapalli village at aiéoxjt --10.3.2{)OO ané durilag thatmigijgt ém:a:i1ba1apa11: Village. Even then, neithee 'I;: "£1=:i)y. informed the occurrence to the 'I'hoL1gh._v¥'3';i:?'V;*s..1 arad 2 had suﬁered injuries V. «_ '{heyf~ not the hospital immeéiately after the .g=._\_ren during morning of the foiiowing day. of the wound certiﬁcate at Ex.P.8 {relating V . to .I".ﬁ;nd that ?.W.1 was examined in the general " " ,:]:1e5t;1iata1Véit. Chinthamani at 4.00 p.m. on 11.3.2000. M H :1. P.W.2 Narasimha was examined by P.W.9 at 4.10 " at General Hospital, Chinthamani. RWS. 1 and 2 have N we.

-55- cxmsistently cieposed that there are Government both at Battarahalli and Iragampaflii which are _ their viiiage. It looks unnatural that1;f»nVe u;it:;.ésse§j~x»§rI1:§ h:;1<}_ K V. suﬁereé injuries had chosen to ge t_n ge§i1e.1:a1 .« Chinthamazﬁ instead of ta1<ing»t:a¢atme'::,;";;..a_ hospitals at Battrarahalli or x V ' V E2. Aecording to eviqrlheﬁxce 1 and 2 the oceuxrence took 'vp§ac:e eat v_ ﬁg;-ga}1 gear Tltje was received by the According to the contente of ~A distance between §1ace of Jisolice is about 22 kms. We a1so"gfi'Ii£ieA.i{'I'()1gt1"'1.5I_V;Ve eVi§i'£ence of P.W$.1£ end 2 and other t1:ie.¢_._po1ice""'had visited Kambalapalli Véiiage on I had campeé in the said village dur1n' g 'afidATﬂ1ey were also available in the village on the ""--._ '%311owifig._.¥iay gm. 21.3.2000. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 had :"e1pprenached the police to infomn about ﬁle O{)C'£1I'I'f:IlCfi. The hyggizduct of P.Ws. 1 and Z2 withholding the inforlnation relating to occmmence at the earliest point of time, lacks Jv . gm. v spontanity in their approach. Their conduct wmzlé create a reasonable doubt ahout the gttnesis of {)(L'C't1E'I'8ﬂCf:. 'I7}'3..t:{ia_'»i.:»~:

no ﬁxplanation by P.W*.s. I and 2 for belatedly _ first information.

P.W.2 Narasimhappa has de1;§<;s¢c}AAf3:ia'€ A' assauited with a club on his head'; }_;j1auSL dérposed that accused no.1 ass%§£uiﬁ€dV' Wif3:'1'-- égcflubvvigan his head. C.W.11 came and has not deposed that the Aaccusegi ﬁes. ﬁssaulted him. The contents of (.:I:42I'[;§fi{i'¢";i¥1t?"3"'.':1:1.iV1{£'ifbﬁ.~i£3Vid€}JC¢ of P.W.9 Dr. was examined 3111 the at about 4.00 pm. and he hat} injuxics:

593,.§b_A.2§hrasi§ﬁ"o*!§r«the forc~h<:aci measuring 2 ems. X 2 ., " . h Coéiﬁtiiaion on the left hand; am} " 3. ;"Ab§*:%1sio21 on left middle ﬁnger measuring 1 cm. X 1 km.

' 'I'here were seals on injuries nos.1 and 3. if accused " 1 has assaultexi FEW. 1 with a club one would axpeci that N 5Q,__g,.Mg,A. P.W.1 would suffer contusion over his heaé. Apart ﬁ'om"--1;he "biow dealt by accused the other accused had ., P.W.1 and caused injuries described at n0s.2 anczﬁs. V A' juncture, it is relevant to state thatvP'.'W--.--} e sustained injuries at aboui 6.30 not visited the hospital '53} 5:. 1jhe.VVfc1:l0i#§i"n*gVVdjay, though the hospitals tt;e...xltzea'r'ny \?iHagesVA..:§namely Battatehalli and were _

13. In thev:&*i3:1}i1d as Exs.P.8 and P» 9, i . Eiive' Véiven the names of their assa2'£an:ts others. At this juncture, it is mxevanf stag», ALhé1:.e."~7P.W. 1 haé visited the genera} Q_h0spi'§ifal: Vvﬁhiiiihamazxi even before going to the police steitioza. --,_v'I"he<..1A:i'is1_;_<31y of in;'uries given by the P.W.1 6:. P.W.2 l.;>£::?c~:e't1;e' sthat they were assaulted by Naxasizahappa ~V and cthezfs iaéiﬂx stones is not consistent with the evidence u cehrt that they were assauited by accused no.1 as 2 f . a':c1ub ané a stone. avg L ..,..{_,W..£,\_ , 3.4. P.W.2 Narasimhappa has de§oscd ﬂlat at the time cf occuncnce when they were pmceeding near the houséof one Ba}ap};2a accused nos. 1 to 12 came to ~ V. accused no.2 assaulted on left ear and head of 'ac' M stem: and accused no. 8 assaulted oIiJﬂié'11ca'~.1 of . mmaining accuscci viz. accuscci nos. biifo 7 9 «.115 ﬁstcd P.WS. 1 56 2.

During cross~cxaz;t}.in.sﬁo1:;. P;"~'$J' 'mat no. 8 was holding a .'?_has admitted that he has not accused viz. acc{izscd_ 9 to 12 had assaulted him. As per COi1'fr;f1t$ cf EX.P-9 of evidcnce of V I-"'.W.'3;-?"Dr. that P.W.2 Namsimhappa was p.111. on 11.3.2000 in the general and mm had suﬁhzed foiiowéng injuxécs: L ? vﬁaccrated wound over the left temporal region meazsnring 4 ems. x 1 cm;

2. Abrasion over right scapuiar rcgion measuring 1 cm. X 1/2 cm. W'

-3g-

P.W.2 has given names of his assaiiants as and others. He has given the history of assault . assault by Narasimhappa and OﬂIl(2I.':S,"3li"iﬂi3. stoiiesfﬁ juncture it is necessary to meatioig :3 hospital P.W.i has not iﬁigéili. _ ﬁ3.*st Therefore, the histoxy of assau1t:V:'_t§"_» :it1fo::fmation) gven by P.W.2 before the name of his assailants and aiso nahare--.e A not lend co1*ro¥3oratioz1_Vf_<:)' deposed that he was assauiteég' left side of his ear with a stone; H his head with a stone.

During has admitted that there are Gove1jna1ent'H.§§s;g.:~ita1s''~. : Battara haili and Iragampalli. «..P.W'-.Q¥'has deposetfthiat in order to reach Chintamani one to, P.W.2 has admitted that police haéeomet 'iii' village at about 8.90 or 9.00 pm. 'gotta P.W.2 has not given reasons for not reporting 1,:tftItevtti11atter to police. P.W.2 has not given reasons for not ' going to hospital éuring the mommg of 3.1.2.2000. P.W.2 u has not given reasons for not going to the nearest hospital '\w§.t:7g§ﬂ\u«~ --é3\~Iﬁ~--¢{(rv either at Battarahallj er Iragampalli. During examination P.W'.2 has given inconsistent e*.ri:iei:iC§€i'L"*- ' . deposing that accused no.8 had aise gssaulted"e£ifh£é;=:ﬁead,, " " 'V with a stick. P.Ws. 1 81. 2 are injtireé evidence cannot be disca1'{ied, "ﬁe ef enmity between P.Ws. 1 63 2 accueedgtliiveir'evidence calls for close Hvthe ﬁrst information, the evidence am} medical «of P.Ws. 1 & 2 withholding the following day though the occurrence 1:0 the police " had viﬁage at about 8.00 p.m. or 9.00 p._m. oLfi~ t}_:ic:. are some of the factors which " s1;spxiVci0I3«iVn the evidence of Ewe. 1 85 2.

V is stated to have attested spot of which are net disputed. P.W.3 has eehnoi the case of the prosecution. She has been A .f_'tt;ea§2{ed as a hostriie Witness and she was subjected to cross» ' eﬁiaeninaﬁon by the learned public pmeecutor. N. xx... ...,{;x A ~ ?.W.4 Gangupapa has deposed that the accused 1:10.}. assauited P.W. 1 wiﬂzx a club and accused 210.2 aeeeulied P.W.2 with a stone. P.W.4 has not deposed _ pmsenee of the other accused. She" has dd accused had abused P.Ws. 1 65 2 ef caste. Therefore, the vez'sicm,t>f__. €I111;,I'l'§'1§{'I fX'OII1 the evidence of P.Ws. 1 81. h d P.W.5 Chennaram%;1jin.a case of the Pmseeuﬁon. 'A d V x n P'W.6 isg witnessed the vagded P.W.6 has deposed that P.Ws. 1 V22ceu1:e Ivouse of one Baiappa. At that time abenut 15 in a group; accused nos. 1 8:. 2 V' "vi&?hoiﬁ§ere-L ,a1n;ed d§$iﬁ1"einbs assaulted on the heads of P.WS. 'w};Li§ﬁ1:.is the version of P.Ws.1 852. Thereafter they afe _}ﬁ'ave abused P.Ws.1&.2. The words uttered by 'VVHA-1 ifs:-_2vas deposed by P.W.6 are not consistenit with the A w~:dje\Afidenee ofP.W's.1&2 on this aspect. P.W.6 has not deposed 'dame of the accused who had abused RWS. 1&2.

" cr0ss~exami:nation P.W.6 has admitted that after a ,\, e A}x»-..d..,.,--&'\.-"'*"'*-$1.. -23- period of 25 éays fmm the date of occurxence she informed the incident to the police. She has achxzitted thatWshe., very much available on the ciay when the poiice "

her viilage and also on the following glay' whenjtheié had visited the place of occurrence. The of informiﬂg the matter to poiice hf M she was very much availgble tibeeiiofttiiizispire conﬁdence in her eviden{:5--_.Qjip.,§V&'L§ that she was a witness for the_A'p;foseeut:i;c.m:'»: case of one Ramakka. is not heipfui to the H é ' it that the accused nos. 1 82;

8 assauited {iii head'v_of""I5.W.2 with a club. Accused no.1 ~:1ssaa::j15ise(*1_A..t1:3'.'»iiA.1 *s:trith"€z*«<§1ub, accused BC}. 8 assauited P.W.2 of the accused ﬁsted P.Ws. 1 Gt. 2.

Szixiiigiexeiseviéexiétminaﬁon he has admitted he has not stated hheforeu gxoii-;_:e that accused nos. 1 63 2 assaulted P.W.2 on his it }_1ee1é1i."has admitteé that P.Ws. 1 as 2 are related to him. deposed that the police had come to the village and "e'nHq'z1i;"ed with him and he naxrated the incident at about (u. ,_.,x€AL»,9"-~«-'<31.//~ = 12.00 noon on the foﬁowing day. However, we do ootﬁnd the statement or infom;1an'on recoreieé by po1iee;e"'at A' 12.00 noon on the following day. The b relating to the assauit by accused nos. j2 '9I:1':

P.W.2 is not consistent with e»1?i;1ence'----o'f'*P.W.2,;. he'refo1A'e,e 'V his evidence does not inspire coﬁiﬁeienee. P.W.8 Kalidasa ~ jé evieieiicevvérelating to caste certiﬁcates issuedj' $32 " VA % ' In the H have narraied evidence 1 & 2 by p.w.9 Dr. Veena ;g;1%5ﬁne: 'ij"1;':3'.§<3<3o and I have also ivy them. Therefore, there is no need" to eei!e}'ateV of P.W.9.

if} Saoiiia------€-iangulappa is stated to have witnessed the' Though P.W.10 has staied that accused 1}o.}"&. 8v in ﬁithy language by touching the name of their e:3;sLte, has not deposed the words uttered by accused mines; 8. He has not deposed that accused nos. 1 82. 8

-- P.W.1 and P.W.2 by taking ﬁle name of their caste " .5w?it11 an intenﬁon to insult them. -25- P.W.1(} has deposed that on the date of occurrence, at about 6.30 p.111. amused nos. 1 85 8 came along. accused nos. 2 £0 7 and 9 to 3.2; accused no. 1 had_;a'"

his hand and aocused no.2 aiso had a stick accused no.5 was holding a stone; ;3c:cu_s§edV izoqlt J P.W*1 on his head; amused no._5 aesaiiited 5. 'V stone; accused no.2 assau1ted"V"dP.:;.V'3.2 the remainixxg accused viz. Ac'e11fsed.'n'o's'; "4._and 63:0 ﬁsted P.Ws. 1 8:. 2. When he 85 2 he was threatened by ﬂ1e« v'acc{1$ed nos. 1 8:. 2 abused *1 their caste.

P.W.. 10. liias :g':i§{ex1»d'£a§:ldée<evidence that on the following day at _a_vbouf"'9.(}O. P.Ws. .1 3:. 2 to the police add thefeéf'er«," to the hospital. During cmss-- .V'--V.oxaVt;ii13.aiioﬂ 10 has deposed that after the incident, Kambaiahalli at about 9.00 13.11:. or 10.00 fp.n3. a He" not inform the incident to the police. One "..He{1'asi;;ehe§pa S/O Yamamla had informed about the

- ixdicgideet to the Kenchariahalﬂ police over phone. Police had " éiéyed in Kambalahalli village duxing that night. Next day 5'\'J_ M « mcming police were in the village but P.W. :0 did not about the eccurrence to the police. P.W.1O hiias: * exaggerated versitm that A-1 clashed_;his.__:no13)fej§?Cie; P.Ws. 1 6:; 2 and they had suffered ~ Heiiihias if that in the statement Iecozdediiihy he Vhasii11§,»;..V5§ated i that accused no.5 assaulted P.W5_;: steﬁe: siccused no.2 assaulted P.W.2 onv Thus I find that evidence of, _ material discrepancies P.W.1é supported the case of the ii is alleged to have witnessed the oecun'eIieeV_:V has iiotﬁ supported the case of the preseeiition. A. V of P.W.11 KG. Venkataramanappa and 55 Naidn relates to the investigation of the 'ease.

i Thus to sum up, the accused and the prosecution 'sziihesses, in particular the injured witnesses and the eye- " iwitnesses had pre--exis£ing enmity. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 60" --\W..4-3»/'r 'iv ,2'}'.

82. 2 mgarding injuries suffered by them and thair assaiiézgts is not Consisient with the contsnts of the injury ~ 2 and thc eariiest version given by them before ofﬁcer. There was almost delay of cempiaint fer which no explanativn {>ﬂ;c§md»h_§; P..WTs."

2. Tm: evidence of P.Ws. 1 3; 2_:'and mg iﬁjuiées suffered by them are v3:;2'l$3OI}SI'i,5'a"£t1¥J-.tL.'- The eye» witnesses who have "the pmsecution beiong to the f.gc4i_i«§);z<1__0f given either inconéistentr.v::i'Sid§is'f.or ézﬁggcratéﬁv veréions. ?.Ws. 1 5:. 2 and theV"A<§:iL:er g3,E.w:;g1c$sgg% havtgééliberateiy émplicated the accused I1{)'S'.- $9 £2:-vesﬁgaﬁ:1g ofﬁcer had shown his intgrestﬁdnéss at {:2._(tVifai:lV(3CpY_iOI1 of the case by including 3}AI1€3€;!,"V *.sxt<3':;'i-(3:11 3 (1) (X) 0f the Act in the first iI:ff)ji*1}:K;;z,*i::E.<::}i3; even though first information does not érrnent constituting said offence. The injured witn¢'s3té§did not infozm the police about the occurrence V' "£1; félCt had visited the village about 10.00 p.111. on the "of occurrence. The cenduct of P.Ws. 1 8:. 2 in not " Kiifornaixxg the policzz W313 were very name available in the W * pm wag.

.23- village, instead lodging first iafonnation wifh Chiatargani town golice which in fact is not the jurisdictiona} the conduct of P.Ws. 1 5:. 2 visiting the general.A4"ﬂos'g§ii*:q£¥l * Chintamarii though there: are Go$:ers1ment W1i€:e.§itél3 xat*-_ K x Battarahalli 61; Irgampalli ﬁe not m%'mife $et~ 'Vhoi:-.eS'i on the part of P.Ws. 1 829 2.

was a faction ridden viﬂage _7§;sr'a.s..eI3;11:1%AtyAvvv}:4:et\ve€:z1 caste Hinéus and eye--Wit11e$ses of the prosecution were 'Land they were interested in sﬁiceesg. (if Vthe_easi:: xof""prosec11tion. The scrutiny?efVe'vie1£tnce:§pf st;sﬁ}éd"t§itnesses does not stand the testvbf jmobabﬂitles. In any event ii is not possibletoé i*10}{1'._t1iaf' prosecution has pmveé beyond gjoubAf"tb_a¥uon 1(},3.2()(}O at about 6.00 19.111. ae.éused~.__no$;tQ 12 had formed into uniawfu}. assembly in they wmngmﬂy restrained P.Ws. I 8:. 2 'V and assaulted P.Ws. 1 55 2 and caused hurt to they aiso abuseé P.Ws. 1 8:. 2 by takingout the .' naxiieef their caste. !\,_ v~e€«g««- The learned trial Judge without considering tiiese discrepancies and Without considexing the delay " K first information, conduct of prosecution mdtnessee, vséitliotitt' discussion of evidence of material "Witn'esses_ in V 't}:ie hackgmund of ;;:re--exist:ing enmity ijaélﬁdeld guilty of the aforesaid oﬁ"ences.V lost sight of interest shdwtl by registering ﬁrst infortxtetton _oﬁ'ences not mentiozaed in the the impugned judgment caxguioi In 'the: tesiﬂt; fpnetss fdﬁowingz °:oRDER ' __is accepted. Appeliants (accused nos. 1 to 1'2) fie.'s§1;""_e.c{;;"'1§'o.41/2000 on the ﬁle of :1 Addl. Dist. 8:.

-V Sessions "--;§i1cig'e, Kolar, axe acquitted of offences punishable sections 148, 324 3!': 342 r/w eection :49 IPC. and ai:eo"of:' the oﬁenee punishable under section 3(1) (X) of the Vt Act r/W section 149 of IPC. B333 bonds, if any, executed by {ha accused shad} stand mnoszllcd. if the accused dttposited ﬁne amount, it shall be refundeé to than " " ° V sak

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court