Karnataka High Court
State By Holenarasipura Town Police vs Rangagowda on 27 February, 2009
Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.Sreenivase Gowda
State by Holenarasipula ' K
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA AT BAN(}ALfi(}RiE',: ~.V_
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY 01:' FEBRUARY, @069':---.f: _
PRESENT
THE I-i{)N'BLE MRS. JGSTICE zv;;sN,JLf;;A"c;i§E,.LLU-R .¥ { 7
AND, .. .
THE HON'Bi.E MR. JUSTICE ..B ;"~sR>13ENI§«'AsEv-G0_wm"
Criminal Appeaa n;p.....éF;3V:2 M20027'
BETWEEN:
APPELLANT
(By S11'. SPF, -an V
1.
AND:
Rangagowda;
S]o.'Muddeg:>wdé1, 9 "
Aged ahoutv 55 years; « -7
_" '53Trufidegowflé'@...Gangam @ Gangadhara,
. V S] CL "Mi1d§icgowda,
_ .Agt2§i'ab-r9u§.3? years.
. "--[)c\;a72;.r;ii:a Vficvmajcgawda,
-__S/ o,- Najagegowda,
'Agédxahout 38 years.
,, " * éxalpégowda @ Saznnotm,
'S-/0. Doddegcswda,
Aged about 47 years.
Sauna Mari,
S] C}. Doédcgczwda @ Dodciaiah,
Aged about 3'?' years.
I0.
11.
12.
1,3 ;
14.
Rama @ Rajegowda,
S] o. Dodciegowda @ Doddaiah,
Aged about 33 years.
Shckara @ Koogappa;
S/0. Boregowéa,
Aged about 30 years.
Manjegcrwda @ Manja, _
8/ 0. Bozegowda @ Papa1;m_a;.. _V
Aged about 32 years. * "
K. B. Surcsha,
S/0. Boregowda @V;; *
Ages} about 25 years.
Patel Bomgoiférda,
S/0 Ramegdfifsiay . '
Aged a}f:0u't<.6'F. __
S /V 0. PatéiTjBom"gowda'~,.. _
Aged aba:.1t'3?S:' ---- ' '
aomgow-ia@,eapamag %
S__1_Vo.Sufedm"?da,
,, ggeqa. about 67 ye,a.z}s.
, "
_ 'S! . C31'51!11*?.%€'W<13»
aft 30 years.
-S]::ji_z_I¢g<:A*s.:a'6;%<;Ai'a,
S} 0. ' «Smgfigowda,
; Agé<:i about 39 years.
.' iihivanna @ Uppizaa fihivanna,
SI 0. Puttaswamygovsda,
Aged about 37 years.
16. Venkatcsha,
S/0. Kothappana Eyavappa,
Aged about 35 years.
17. Rangegcwda,
S] 0. Channegowda,
Aged about 32 years.
A: to 12, 14 to 17' are residgnts "
of Kamenagaily Villager, V
Holenarasipuxza Taiuk.
' RESPGNQENTS
(By Szii. S. Shankarappaénd H V
This Crimitiai Agape.-ai filed 378(1) Ga (3)
Cr.P.C by the fStai:e___P.l?§wVfbr~¥L'1§:'-.Stgté' pxaymg that this
Bs:>n'blc Courtémvagr _.plr:2asefd uto léjafié to file an appeal
against the j~;;;1g¢h;e'ntL'=da£¢;;VVL.:z4;m3.2§:(}1 passed by the Pr}.
S.J., Hassan .11; :'5'1.g&9$, Aéiqujffing the Respondents ---
Accused":Vfer--_~me uls. :43, 143, 341, 307 R/W sec.14__9"H?c; V' V _;_"I'hi$ cof:n:£ng on for hearing, this day, ' 'rs1AN';;:i}L;s'L'::H§;L1,uRC;;t;'aeuvered the follcvwing:
JGDGMEHT is directed challgnging the judgment and larger--my aéqmua: in 3.0. N051/1995 on the 15.12 of Principal Judge at Hassan, datad 23.8.2001 whamm the
-«.VVVVé h;érgcs against the accused are for ofléznccs pmcfmhabie under Sections 143, 147, 341, 30'? read with Sectie;1e'.._'i'4-9 H30.
2. in brief, the case of the ;erosecutioJ1, tu§_:J;.retLg:VIiL'<tI1e witnesses for the prosecution befozt;.'the:A'l';=iét;3,_j under: PW5 Javaxegowda is the colfieleiaanfi 'V PW.8 Nanjamma is none other his to the evidence of these is fliegig éeanding enmity between the persons because of was for more than five incident in question.
Aecoxdieg mi 01; the date of inciaient one Giédegowdag, {he landowner of the eompiainant Javaregewda ase'au}§te(:1.;.. Therefore suspecting danger to her ..PW.€§ e6ifies to the land where her husband a pair ef bulloeks and the cart in the lead eaw a big gathering near the Iand of She 3130 saw PW.1; PWCQ, PW.6 and. others "e7u:;:efinding her husband Javaregewda who had fallen on ground with severe} injmiee on his person.
3. As 96:" the complaint of the compiainan3;,' ----pn 28/4/1991 at about 4.30 p.:::::. he was 3 zzear Shivagura, when he noticed all the accusgtd including decaaseci and accused Ne-. i3"armtec1& Eike clubs, choppers and stones co£i:in:g._T{éTwa[ifi$. Suspecting the violence .215 Shivapura village and said. to }1§§!V€vVV:§.3flBf.C9if'!if(.I fifié 'h:>.:1s:::§ of one Kafigowda @ Siddczgowtvi.-'.i deter from inside. P531. 1 flhc house had gone to fetal; the water. The accused .asi{(§,»(1::V:hc:§r"'r:.x...*.3i)en the door and send Java1'egu::$*s:Vd::1.' fier father~i11--Iaw Karigowcia and others _ "h:§31se. Accused also asked these xto. ()p€tI',l! i'.}.!.(% and send Javcregowda out of the fibusé. Karigowcia did not agree for the same, P.W.14 also came there. When _ accuéfiiad vthmfifianed Karigowda with dire mnaaquences of H H " house, if vicfim Javarsgowda was met sent out Eiousc, P.W,14 Nanjegowéa after convincing Kaxigowda % h.1r€;11ght Javaregowda out sf thus: bangs and sent him to his Vviflagc Kamenahally.
4. According tn the pmsecution Kazigoweiaéitad others were foiiowing the injumd Javaregowda .' A' protection and aii of them noficeé accused fonqieiing compiainant holding deadly weapoI:ieWVi1Hi ' reaching the land of Ningammaof 'V and others advised P.W.5 to go uebeut to return to their village «aeeuéed said to have formed unlawful Weapons iike clubs, chQy:--"§er$ the land of Ningamma after surrouneiing ::'.':§f}.:_e aae;:...of; the accused and the native in the evidence of P.W.5.
According1yVV'm_ that P.W.5 Javaregowda was 'they i;:e:..Ve;e place. All the witnesses who were assault from a distance reached meanwhile Smt. Sarejamma bmught V V _ some""wa§ef. they were trying to give Water to him when P'.'.&*,8_'~Sm{... Nanjamma wife of the injured arrived at the spot. Vilefarlival she secured the police and with the assistance "Elf--ifllti poiice, the injured was shjfteé to genera} hospitai at Vflolenazasipura.
On intiniatiou fmm the hospital, the concerned poiice said to have visited the hospital and Ittcmtded the statcmeni of P.W.5 at about 3.0-30p@'T'._':*:'ii2;.i returned to the police station. After rcgisi:cz'i;1g-- .'u No. 121/91, F'.I.R. was sent to juxisdictionai Head Constabic who recorded haneied over filrthcr infoxmation. _to $756. is 'V examined as P.W.19.
5. During the éeiiisg £31' ::3;;;:%t:-54$-1';'i:;g.a5:'51:i:'.:bb11 PSI prepared spot mahazar, seized unstained sample mud, réfcoxfiiétgii the -:u)f"":.'§everal WitI1CSS€:S, ar1'estecL said to have gvcn vo1unta1'y statc1i1€nfTAto< discovaxy of one chopper near Chakana of izavestigafion several medicai V' sgid 1:9 ha§é"E:a£:€:n collected from diflemnt hospitals =.=a_S the _ Vwas admitted in Holenarasipura heégxifél, féferxeti to gttmzral hospital at Hassan and .A "i1eifi;as§ referzred to Viastmia Emspita}, Bangalore. 011 RW5 injured was admitted to Victmtia haspital was inpatient till October 1991. The Size]: Inspects:
took up further investigation firam P.W.19 and after eemglefing the investigation, filed charge sheet fer the said oifences. As the ofience under Se<:.30'?' _ indicated, based on the material the case was"ca1fi:n;i{%ed<. to u the Sessions Court.
6. When the accused pieefied 330: iguilty of the '"charges, the matter;-was S,€21£:..i_"'c.r'"cyié.enee;-.. 111% all 19 witnesses were exanfineti' Exhibits and one material object u
7. eft*afg11ix§ents, 313 statesnent of the ;§iec1iSecl:eV5»y§*as:V;i Vmain contention of the acet1see1x'i::et'<:--reV v»'."T,e;'t';t'ti,.--~s>\ras, a false case was foisted agai:i'1s_t_vtheni~dt1e. to earliei" enmity, therefore accuseé was Aecefd§;;:g" to the learned trial Judge, the unable to explain why one impeftant seitnées C«.V5§*e;'§2Vff{ar§gowda in whose heuse P.W.E3 saié. to have takeifi siieitee on 28/we/$31 net examifleé and the same is V:%ta1- 3:0 the case of the preseeution. The Ieaxneé Juége * regard ten the hestiiity of the Witnesses to the ease of " pmsecufien, after scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.5 and P.'W.8 the compiainant and his wife, mfimately heid that there was long standing enmity between P.W.5 on hand and acxrusezi persons en the other hand for _ years. Therefore, it was quite possible for the "
implicate accused in a faise case, as ttae it establish the first incident near the house of V Shivapura. The trial Court efiteetained the genuineness of the statezeje-'at of the second incident as Weit By referring to the ft-('extents {pf eompaxing the evidence Though the defence did not and omissions in aceotfiafiee {fith the ieanled trial Judge after referring to the cottttadietiosie and omissions on comparison Qf 0f (3OB1_p}»':1iIIt with the evidence of wtitnessee s0v,_aise«.?';'@_*.8, opined that it Wouid be dangerous to base "the vec¥t;vi(:tion of the accused persons on the sole *Vtesfi11't%:32;y"V9f .P".s\U.5 wine hafi long standing enmity of 15 years x V' the accused pereons. As eye -w Witnesses turned he held it as a 'biow ta the ease of the pI'0S€C'£)2'£i£)ITt. a V xi' T u'l"'}:terefore, he preeeeded to hold that the proseeutzkm was unable to estabiish the charges levelled against the accused 10 persons beyomi reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of acquittal, quesfionjng the reasoning of the court as an outcome of perverse appxeeiafion of evi.z.i.ge:1c:e'eo'_n"" V. record, the State has preferred this appeal M of the Juégment of acquittal.
8. According to the 1eamed4.State"P1§b§io Froéefclygor Bhavani Singh, if long standing is' adiniisaecifgby the acousecci, the motive by ,fhe__'1§iosecufion, as the cause for assanit of the absence of any other é 'V 'J, . fieaasiflg the complain' ant or aecidenta1--ifijii:.e3 t.he_Tfeomp1ainant~P.W.5, though court:
has to be=..c'aL1t3lo1'3.--s "iii ,.éiSseSei11g the evidence of injured eemgljaginant, it totaiiy discard the evidence of injured V1.i2i¥:1e$ee§s 'juSt«_.because independent eye Witness did not vvtfie the prosecution. He also stressed on the po72$.1£.__tha§:; mfejwj eouid. be eoznvfisetien of the aecusetfi based on sole teetizfiony of the injured witness is the settied position of gkeeording to him the experiexxee in this country has hehown that for masons best lmown to the Witnesses even the V' close relatives of the victims fie turn hosiéée to the case of the
9. As against this the learned counsel fc1'5::t.he defence Sri Shankarappa brought to our A' contradictions and omissions referred to in flge of ' the trial Court, £10233 the evidence of P.W.9. According to him, if p_r9sect1w!:ici1._ Was*Q» nQ'At'».pblt:r.'.£¢:> establish the incident near the 'hcfzse ct' the absence of evidence of :'i{g1igoWda.,QtheteV"su§tJorting such incident, the evideétxcet ' the first incident at Shiyazfipm incident at Hilttave :0 be rejected as to bin}, when the iI1mates:V'v._'of'-- 'flee CW2 took the IBS13On3ibi1iVt_']_" t the complainant from the accusefitvbgr foflotxrifiigvv till the land of Ningamma on the V. Kkaznenahaiiy Village, there was no reason why en the statement before the police if1i:1¥s.{:ni3:tie to the case of the prmsecution. in toto. him, even if they have not suppoxted the second near the land of Eiingamma, they could have s:2_:.;::pcrted the incident near the house of Karigswda, $40 as to connect the fimt incident with that of the seconfi incident. fie also bmught to our notice that the police and the in the evidence ef P.W.6 Mayamma who eaid to A' accused armed with deadly weapons near.' of .¢ Nzingamma stressed 01:: the point iéentify accused No.3, therefore _ I:_1er eA:14iV£:iA1;e-- 'V false. '' V V V' S
19. Apparently, V ise eyefiséitnees; she arrived on the spot onlyta there is some harm to for the alleged motive bzeught the she Cannot be relied the learned defence Counsel sueesilig (}e'v.t1ieV_b'p1e'Jt%er of the appeiiate court under 2 See.3i?314 P_._C eautien he be observed by the Court heafi1igV'te1§e--.appeal under order of acquittal seught for
-j utfudgment ef aeqixittai. With these *Varg'umee4;;t's,V in our mind, we have gone through the evidence u x V' "lef the-.s§vi§esees and so 3139 the judgment ef the ma} Court. that arise fer our consideration are:
(1) Whether the Judgment and order of acquittal ofthe txial Court in SC 51/95 on the file of the Prl. Se$$iens<jJv;§t_'ige;.VA' Hassaxz Warram: any interference?
(ii) What order?
12. So far as kie11t:ity.' ~ of accused 1 to 18, there is no'eo12ix't1siot1- the case of the pxoseeution. a mVatter:_of_»faet; cross-
examination of the the defence was abie to e-stablivsh between the compiainant or} 0153' side' 'aeciiseti persons on the other ot" political rivalry or other reason. What; stanéing enmity progeeted by eompleifiaxéitvvtis !:adm3'ttee§ by the defence, the said double eeiged weapon. Therefore the court :"'~;eey;.'::'e;e.ut.ious while assessing the evidence on t _ reeofi as..__'per.eefia1 liberty of the accused woulé be ilnsoived if " ''''--.:§"ix<.igetmer1tA:'is to be reversed. it is Wei} settled, in more than that inference can be drawn fiem the facts brought VA tgnfrecord by the prosecution. The inference or the opinion, are beneficial to the accused alone has to be taken / inizo consideration and uniess and until the appellate court is of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal is notiiipg but outcome of perversity of the txiai court, While V V the evidence and gving reasons for acquittal, M Ccmrt cannot ordinaliiy interfere :W'i'ih-- . the of acquittal. So far as motive, there 'J36 secofgid. .. regaxding long standing enmity ibeiiween A1":}L;e__ {he date of incident on 28/4/91. V' i ii
13. Then coming' ii -incideni, the prcisecution ef,f>.W.5, flied to P316. P.W.9 and P.W.16- Boxegowga. i '-It' ~r.>{' the prosecution that when accused cieadly weapons, P.W.5 got scared and the v1'11xa"g"e"'uf Shivapura and took sheiter in the Karigowda is the elder: brother of RW .iiifti»B<:iife§€;;xi€1a, P.W.2--Basaveg0Wda and P'.W'.3 Shivatma 'goes ef Karigcwda, F~Eanjegowda-»--P.W. 14 is a leaizifieeus perscn, It is clear that P.W.3, P351. 16 and are the brothers of P.W.1--Puttab<)rz1mma. iiliifiiuttabcramma is the wife cf Boregowda, P.W.16 Basagowda is the relative ans} P.W.14 Nanjegowéa is some other 'ihe neighbour whose house is separated fiom the Qirf' Karigowda by the road rumixing between The intense relation as stated aboveis _:1o; an The serious dispute is regarding shelfer in 'V house of Karigowda. All the Wiiiteeses heve._etatefl taking shelter in the house' of «'a'j{¥i9;~oi)abflity the name of Karigowda eldest in the faznfly of ?.w.1§3...j As a_ .§§\.':'et%:c;,A' {gas P.'W.1 wtxo noticed raw' gee she brought the Water commotion in front of the houee of other family members was eeoureifi by {Jnfortunately none of these witnes_{3e'S were head? to support the ease of the complainant tiiatfie to their house for shelter suspecting é anVg5e_1f.1t£)' the hancis of accused persons. The _aeeu$:ed ..;'pcm§"ans ere reeidemis. of Kamanahafl}: a «. h village of Shivapura. The evidence indicates anel Kamatzahafly are separated by some lands eimiated in between. Because not only P.W.S ilxjured but also ~ f3:1ese W'itI1fi$$«'.'i'3 P,W.1, 2, 3, 14, 162 were ahie to folisow P.W.5 According to the prosecution P.W.8 is the Wife axfivedefier the second incifient was; over. The 1.0. K intmduceé a different theory much simpier H Case of the prosecution to book a fa}.-se"ca«$e ::1gainsTt'va_ccVused persons. if the LO. really intended li'a_i?eJ peeice or the desire: of the ti1eAfi:iooi1.:ee€i";3}1 a false case, oothing of thetsort ham} except P.W.5 no one the case of prosecution. on his case out of fear Though P.W.6 Maya1nma"'i§1.;'e(3;". enough to speak about near the place of second incident, d1ie««f§o Iaose of she could 110? be examined. In ordegtrfijo Viinp1i{:a;£e"~t1";e___eecused whether P,W.S could have made _V1::e._e 'oI*«.;fi--e__ incicient, which was totally unconnected $é'.oeé3s;et1;..Vkfrzfortuilately, though ciefenee was able to V.eugge'é?;t "--3eeVei:a1 euggestions to F'.W'.5 regarding the " V' 4 zfegiefgratioii of several cases againet the accused goersons, it a suggestion. P.W.5 did not admit the suggestion number of false eases being registered against the n accused. at his instance. However, ieamed Judge in all 23 away with his life. There is also no evidence: on rt:cVc_)I 1i. ai_:
least a suggestion to the cfifiect that on the _ incident, P.W.5 had an accidental fall while "
land, therefore, the injuries x*r:feI$fcd:_:,f;£>fj. certificate Ex.P~--28 were caused; Even if such a Tsfiggésfiofi; ié."
macic to the metiical oficers fl'§_:£i{-V'S'1'(3h be caused by accidental fa}§,:::i:%..\ax?oL7;it§1""V1_iVt:Vfi any égsiétancc to the accused unless there 'igsa that injuries are caused due suggesticms are made. cmssmxamination enmity between the two of 20 to 25 complaints made to iii'! . W o1;1é._ indicate that accuseti were ;:1£en1}§:;1g °i;r> cai:Se.__'1;1j11zies to P.W.5 constaafly on 93:16:
V ' V _ _oc<§.*asi_on.VoI= .1-_h;: 'ether. '' V. .T}_§:;§efom in the absence of sustaining these 'i;g1§"£Z13f'i€3S "Qtj9';a-:r than in an assault we have to go through the ._ fiwiidence of RW5 am} 30 also the ncvtcs of medical to Illtimattaly arrive at the conciusion Whether the V.prose<:uti<:::s:1 case is gfimxine or otherwise. It is an unfortunate case where third party wimesses to theftirst incident and also the second incident have turned..'"
Though ?.W.6 admittedly supported the prosecution, her evidence shows her'irtéEi}it3"'«tc However her presence at the place of ir:ci:i_en"t¢:,a3d 'V accused armed with deadly skeatecns 15 or falsified in the emss~exa111}11afic13z' 'her-eevideiicee. "though she is treated hostile to has supported the case of the be taken into CGDSiiiCrafiOI}."'};;'.$tiA;é.: -ref the entire eviden.ce, hlgt all the time under constax1t;~.,S'x"i"ess=,Vv ta her husband at the hands of t1ie;,gcc,u§¢d§'e.'_ to her at 5 p.m. she was _ talqingibeieii eattig fig: Lf:1g1' 'V]'.uagC and on the pathway she saw away towards Shivapura armed with deadig eiubs and chepper. ' She returned to her V _ house. at because she was restlesss, therefore: she .4 H " eéuneuto the land, where her husband was weridng. she did 'see: her husband but she saw a pair of bulloclrs and a pidugh in the land. She aiso noticed severai people had / V,:j..TV;Tgameme near the land of Ningamma including P.W.1, P.W.16, P.W.2 P.W.3 and P.W.6 Mayamma. On Ieaching"~t11e saici Land she saw her husband with injums on and iower limbs .3116 the peopie who gathered M were {zying to put water to the monfii 'ofhe_i' v*.s';}1eVL'~.. returned back to her viliage for poiice van had come to her vflleLge"'agd S.]:'1e.'_shQjJ1ve§i where her husband was to Holenarasipura general .aE$e'»«V&c{g)mpanied her husband in' the e3 .m.e the cross-
examination at. tried to bring on record that"'theV§e' fis'hee statement about A" 1 ts A~18 "-f_;'}:1<')ppers seen by P.W.8 whfie r6:turz1ing trV$>}:;er. }i'o11Se_?" thing was not brought on _..,.rCC01f£'¢.;':.{§Lv1iiiI1g esfigience of P.W.18 who recorded. the *__stAa:temee,t; Her evicience that she saw A-*1 to 18 Shivapura ané they were armed with V V _ c}ub:§%z2nc¥'--.V:Ci¥1:;;§$pers cannot be discarded. 0n the other hand W H " Aeehfeadf . states} above Shivapum and Kamenahafiy are e.$ii:_§.Va5m.iA within the vicinity am: the land of the mjumd 'situfated at Shivapagra, therefore he haé to plough his land " ' anr:;i hazi to return :9 Kamenahafly in the evening. O11 account of 101::g~standing enmity between the eomplaieniéent and the accused, if P.W.8 anticipated harm fiom A' her husband there is nothing wrong in her app_Ifie2§;h:.i;e b towards the land Where her husb}é£ie1 'w:;s'<._p10u%gg'_lfiit;g;7:9' ascertain the safety of her husband.
13. Unfortunately, her V. to have some tme when 'She in the me of c:.w.22 N2ngaw§égé§.+V~e ':§'l::ie Ex.P-
28, Ex.P-29, 'wou1a;1 indicate that the med'1ea}_'<0fi'itf:;* vatVj~}:I{i1e_1i:1:'a$ipur hospital by name Dr. Vflfifloleznarasipur regarding the «of Kamenahally with injuries due go_ agéauifi .<,5n "ve8f%;/91. From Holenaxasipur V' "" "he was referred to SC. hospital, estabfishes this fact. Ex.P--3{) is the Xerox Cofég» {if tI:§e'v'"3§:eident register frongx Victoria hospital which '~sa;'c311l::§"i£?;d:fi§;a1v;e that P.W.5 was admitted to Victoria hospital .;?4--j4/V'9} at 8.40 pm. with injuriee referrezi in the regeter. We have the evidence ef RW. 10 an "VVVVVc}fl'.'hopedie surgeon, P.W.11~Parthasara¥:hy", who is an Asst. 24 Smgeon in Victoria hospital, and Dr. R.Rangaswaeay, examined as I-'.W.12 worlcing in General _ From the evidence of these doctors though the..g;):1fexsee§{:ti0:1v"' was not abie to examine 9r.Ch0W§%1aia}fi '{;vf'}{(51¢'I1elif'c?:$i}é§iiMf:. T hospital, P.W.12 who ide3:1€:ifi.ed. memna xvz_~i.:iugf' cg ij)1¥;- V Chowdaiah, the medical ofiiee1'9"'f:1::§z.§m_ Hoie1V1e£ta:éip§i§'aVVVWas examined. Ex.P--32 is 'jjazso 'séfit""§y 3;-.
Chowdaiah from to P.S.I. Holenarasipur. of aeimission of the patienéi gefl};e'1:f'31V.1iospit21 on 28/4/91 somewhj:fe"VVai1*ei::;;c1«V': Vet) he was constantiy attended "b§'? three different hospitals because of Lsrtrieus sustaineci by him and was '~ in. the month of Oetober, 1991 VietQiia:V'i1espital. In other words whether the ixijuries susthaizieév 5 referred in the waned certificate at EX.P- Wele ;i:a1I..eed before the injuries stzstaineé by brim' on j2.8} 4/.91 visas to be aseertasefs' eci and admiseien {if him to fie'.-H'}:3~1:eéfi1:aA.;rasi;3ur and referring him '£0 major hospital {mm time T ~ {dfime without discharging him from the hospital 1:311 he was U discharged in Octcber 1991 frem Victoria hosyital would go 25 to so that there was no possibility of this Witness su_st§;'1I3,ifig ixljutées otherwise in the assault an 28/4/91. ' " V: '
16. The next qucsticsn is: I-what.:is". t11§ i:1éiz1§'e*--:£>f injuries he sustained on 28[4[91 30 and who are the assaiiants ?
1?', We have to Vfirxive at the conclusicm of nature 01%' the injured.
Reading of Sec..f3 the nature of i}:1;§z11y sustahiéd reads as uncicr:
S§C;3"1gwA..:l?%:.¢;_ :i R . . . A 5 mfhgevgr' disease or infixmity to any person
A .".'.'.I'.hc: following kinds of hurt only are t ggricvous":
--VSe<:ofh1}.'ii1y ':'v:l§éi°i;1anent privaizitzsxrz of tbs sight of either eye 'A u ' :v P.§crmanent pzivatien of the hearing of either T ~ Foiiriiniy : Privatioxz of any: member or joint. 26 Fifthly : Destruction or permanent impairing of the f » powers of any member or joint.
Sixthiy : Permanent ciisfiguration of_'f.he,__h'ead'.'of 4' Sevemhly: Fraetlzre or dislocafion of La; b<1»j§ieA.or :1 A Eighthly : Any hurt which endaogexjs -or'u73nie'3fi' fhe % sufferer to be during the space___io£:_tv:ex1ty dagfe. severe bodily pain, or unable to foi1r3w ~p},1:rsuits."
18. we nape M £ "fro-111 23/ 4/ 91 till the }§oHspita,1 in October, 2991 took tzeatment for the rupture ienéo ' sifles. Ultimately at Victoria hospitai af"l:e~::__ae loiig patient was operated on more _v than 'V<';-fie oeoasio:3._ So foizv: as right rupture tendon Achilles. olifiieal examination did not reveai any fxaetum of r§it;ir1ei*'«s;e13oz;:1s injuries, winch woulfi have afitracteé the ofieoee 1m__;ier;See.320 IPCE. Explanation (§), any hurt which " 'A<__e:i1:ia§:gef*s;...}«H5e or which causes the sufiezer to be c§m:'1n' g the V' twenty éays with severe bodily pair}, or 'emabie to V. his ordimaxy prusrsuits, Wouid aiso come under the Logiefinition of grievous huxt. Apparently he was hospitalised 2?
for more than 3 'f2 months. Then: is nothing ()1:
indicatirag his admission to the hospital was A' On the other hand the operations for mptum..of b {endo achiilczs on both sides was t;;"§1'k€:1:b:1'_:A'<i1;;"Eijj/ 17/7/1991 at Victoria hospital. 'I_'his P--i:?§'~< V Summary sheet giving the "of the" The doctor from this h0spitai"j:a_§s '1:<5te <')f what was the treatment. Therefowié (ff: that the injuries sufiemgl, if.-he k';§é';%svv'VinjuIies. E'.x.P. 28(1)), already treated at Houanarasi§m~..'fjs:;nd':7'§V géfiérm 1:1o$pi'ta1s. Ex.P»29 contains "£a1l"1;heV the ciatx: of examining the patient in the: *casuai1y'n"§; 29/4/1991 heme he was .i_:he fiéspiial 1&1} he was discharged from the medical zecorcls, the sutured wound both. ieft below knee 31:16 below malleoii reveals 'jthfirf: §rcja§,n:<:V)' fracture of the tcndo achiikas ruptmt and }a:ide'd .110 thare was §fift'3Cti{)}I1 of ttxternal wound. Hence in the hosyita} for more than thrlfifi months. 28
19. '¥'hc leazned counscjzi for the defence vehfizfiefifiy argued that the contents of the complaint would _ the patient was fuiiy alert and themfore all u referred to in the complaint and ?
believed in the light of the admission 51- _t1:m~. mgurezg gm his Wife P.W.8--Na11jamma that ifi_§ur§§d'v§vaflsi':§shificd from the place of incicicxzzféitm the evidence of these wit:ness€$ with the medical recozdg, fl§;e:§£{..':i:"i;é{ LfiotV_.g:VVfC%1se whens right from the placifi he was shifted to victma without any medicai interve111:;(;3:1; ~ ireatment, setting right the rupture pf téiidq' a<:léi11é$ @933 not done at Hollanazasipura and A genémE""*hcspita1, apparently, the records "'-;a;3.::5<§ateA ijmfnad initially taken. treannent like clezaztling, snfufiiig of Skround and tcttanus injection for czontmlling ' '.§,nff:Cti%)}.1. fI' hough it had not gene intm serious infectian, V' '..1}{hé:éL'was infection by the time Inc was admitted to Victoria The saié infection eicpcnds upon the itnnzunity of " patient to Withstané the infecficm. The very piazza where « the incident has occurreci, {and where lot of dust was there '"5 29 definitely the open wound was prone for infc<":1:ion.. ' A' othemrise it is 1:01; the case of the medical V- achiiies rupture was flue to inftgcgtjqg Q:fi~»._tb"%; developed by the patient. On the:'a§)£h§f1'«.. ¢c.5i7: « tendo achiiies was due to violaéleg 0:1" b.oiih iheé assailants.
20. Now we have L'§2:§.v"'r:§sponsiblc for causing the injqzisg vfeuzzgd' §::Ff:h§e pé%;sq§: c,:f'ti1e injured and what offe11c§:* A23 alreaéy discussed. by comparing the content.é:_Qf§!:ate33:£c13.ts of the Witnesses not only 'i;:l1ét_ injured but aiso with the t:vid€:;11f§c:'V sf witr;:Lcsses concluded that they are 30 far as the overt act of the assaiianta. above that there was no other way theme ' _ injufi:%_s C§)7{i1£*i«:!"}i;€1V6 been sustaiiltszd by the injured as other not awn suggesteai to the: wimasses. Under @1558. éfitumstaficgs, we are of the apinion, the incident in ¥i11_J.§?§S1;'iOfl has occmred and the ingdxreci has sustained the . i:1j:1ries due to assaufit manly. The }3I'€2SfiflCf3 of these accused
21. in that View of the matter as exam2'aat;ion--i11--chief A4 Kaiegowda assaulteci _ back of his right ankle joint with a chopper. "
Shivegowda assaulted hire on the sihtétztlduer then A-2 Gumiagowda also asf:wt1;1teé«'h_itfi-- on 1 V with a chopper when A~6 tight ankle with a chopper. tltsfitgvegowda assaulted on his right shotltdef v'Afi5~Sanna Mari assaulted. him 9:1 IA~15 Shivanna aué A517 The number of ixxjuries the Wound certificate anti medteat all in consonance with the number of said to have been given by the . gI§3<:uvs%,§§§£;£ mettevifiefiee of P.W.5. Totally there were four are serious in natuze on both legs and twé Aii1§¥.1zies'Ve£e..e:si1np1e in nature are the shoulder and éiiiflflill. ' 'S9 tiiseiostgxev of the details of the assaults anti pert chosen assaiiants including the weapons with which P.W.5 sssaulted is consistently and clearly stated by P.W.5 so " as Aw'? Kaiegowéa on the right snide joint anti A-6 Rama on the right ankle' The other ir;1}*£1ries are simpie in natuxe 32 anti A44 Shivegowda and A1 Rangegewda have him with ciubs.
22. The Court cannot overlqgk the "i0né§Vst'é&.1.ding./, u enmity between the two groups and Ztvhe vcnegance against all the suppm_:__1:ers 'his c::;:1(%': :g;'L«:*:s_._H number of assaults said to hate; P.W.5 ought to have rcstfited cannot rule out the possibility of several persons in. the four persons have caused grievous. In other words, fivhéxté is Crystal clear and C1jIlCj.'}.ifl$v"f}1';";fl'f_ gaé A~6 Rama are responsible for causing grieygfis-._inj~1i1'ies, whiie A~iRa11gag0wda and A--I4._$j3iVfi_éGWda hzirefiv-...mspo11sib1e for causing the simple the clubs, conviucted by the case of prti:>3eC*:ifi'<):1--Vé§;1 as complicity aufii the presence of other 'VaC£:t1SC';{;¥.3 For the masons mentitmed above and in {be light :cs:f' E16:-._c"3i&:V:§'u$sion, we am 01" the oyinion the appeal srieserves ._ .¥L{3; 'a'}A3<3We€§ in part.
33
23. Accozdingiy, accusad 2, 4 85 6 are founci guilty of offence punishable: under Sec.326 IPC. While accused; Sr. 14 are guilty of an ofience pzmishable under _ IPC.
24. So far as other accused 'to 17 are fcmnd not guilty and are set}1£bfibe1;tj;_.. ' V V"
25. Heard the .A and H S. Shankarappa regazjgiing H'
26. Ha'v§;:1__gthe 1..taé: tv1;a£VVthe incident took place 1. .t]3at the parties are 130331 the neighhourixsgu bound to see each other rcglllariy, we eV11sAA<;ifiiheV'9pi11io1:1, a sentence of two months of Rs.5,000/~ (Rs.five thousané) A6 each is imposed as sentence in so far as cfiflfgf-;11c¢~ ~1§i§riEr section 326 IPC. 80, far as ofi'e1:1c:t:: under sect;on"3{?;4 we fine of Rs.1,0GQ/-- againsi A1 and A14 is "im?§S€fi-
27. The accused are dimcted '£0 deposit tilt amount wit{n';1 four Weeks from the date of 5f'. f€Iié". . copy <;sf the orécr.
A .
1~.
GS/L11 sak