G C Nagaraj S/O Chikkashanaiah vs State By Kunigal Police on 8 September, 2010

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

G C Nagaraj S/O Chikkashanaiah vs State By Kunigal Police on 8 September, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

IDATED THIS '1'HE am DAY OF SEPTEMESEZR 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.Jus'1'1QE'%N.m\zAa\2:5i;g  '-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NC§A;1€3é"_32'~,«:'2&(3O!3"' T  

CRIMINAL APPEALNO.16-46/2Qt::_  

IN CRL.A.1622/2003 

BETWEEN:

. G. C. N'a,<._§;ar21_§

S/0 C11ikkashé1ii5;i.2ii'1      

@ Chikkath.i4:nrr;2ia.2.i;:."    »

aged 41_y§:ar*sV,V"' ".,__ _   "  

Resideﬁt. oVf"'Gi1C1ada';3a3y&..Vi11;1ge;W
Kur1iga1_  ' '
'1'Lm11<ux<.D1st,m~;r   ._   ..APPELIAN'F

[By SI:-1I'i  hiﬁiméréyappa, Advocate)

SE ai:e~ 'byv  Poli CC,

p':f.ese_!'1by

 '  State ?Lib._iic Prosectutm",
A  V "High Coart of Ka1'11a€.aka.
V~.EBaI1"g;:}0re. ..RESPON DENT

    Shri Vijayakumar Majalge, High Court Government
.. -~PiE€ade1*)



 AND;   

This Crimi1'1a.l Appeal is filed under Section 3724(2)
of Cr.P.C. prayiiig to sei--aside the order 'dated
l,lO.2003 in S.C.N0.6--4l»/98 on the file of the Pi'i'1'1€3ipl'a~1¢
District and Sessions Judge. at Tumkur rela_tIi1g..'1~a__j:the 

(:011vi(:ti0r1 of the appellant. for the 0ff€i'1(3t'.fpllI1'iS:ll*£1'liJ1é:" H 
under Section 323 Endian Penal Code and»..34_}'ir1dian' 

e him _. .t(_5' ~ i;;n(:i'er:gd 
simple imprisonment of one yearkand-.f7inve 'o't"Rs;'-50'{ir'..& 

default to undergo Simple lmprisviaenmelnt of ..o1'ae 
and further sent:enee to paya -ﬁne ol'A.RS.5OO./l¥'.'._:   l

Penal Code and the order senteneijing

IN CRL.A. I646/2003
BE'l"'\/VEIEN:

Padn1anabhaiah,v_   . 

S/0 Patel Dod_da'sh'_aI1alah:. 

aged 46 years}.  ~    V
Resident 0fi'Gidada';3s1lyé--.V1lIage.,  
KL111igal'I'alu'k.l""-  3    
'l'ur11kur'"ijlistliiictt.   f""'"..APPELLAN*r

(By Shril'H.lM.  Advocate]

X Stat-e_V by V  Police.
' Re p_r.ese.r}t;ed by. V 

Si'.a_te*--.Pu biiéf «Pif0Se('tLit01*,
Hig}'i-..C01_=;1' t p%7 Karnat.aka.

' V VBar1galQrei. . .RESPOl\l DENT

 Shri HVijayakumar Majage. High Court Government

 _ Fleader)

N. (£;Li.4



This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2)
of the Cr.P.C.. prayiiig to praying to set--aside the order
dated 1.10.2003 in S.C.No.64/98 on the file of the
Principal {District and Sessions Judge. at 'l'unr_1kL1r
relating to the conviction of the appellant for the off_ence
punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal (Zode__"an'dA
341 Indian Penal Code and the order S€nt€I1(ElI1g<.i:ii,El;1V~:i{)' 
undergo simple imprisonment of one year and  '

Rs.500/« in default. to undergo Simple lrr;p17isnrnnVen_t -of' ._ 
one month and further sentence -to pay" ":fii'1ej_of,

RS600/~.

These Criminal Appeals Corning o1'1,»i'or.flearjizlgg 

this day. the Court made the --..1'oll_()wing___{._;~' .
O R D  H

The appellants  No.lA6"él6/2003

and Cr'ivmin-a.lll5gpp_e'al 2003 were arraigned as

accused di\los;4~ and  were tried with accused

 Nos.,.i:"'t.<)cA.3, 5;"   to 13 for offences punishable

 éeziieéx seAc1.:g§r«1s 143,147,148. 341. 302 r/w Section 149

 2\.._['.l'.I"1e""lea1"11ed Sessions Judge acquitted accused

 1  13 of offences punishable 11/ s 143,147 and

.  I48 I'¥5C. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused





Nos.l and 2 for an offence pulﬁshaiqcle 1.3/3 302 zfead

with 34 IPC. The Learned Sessions Judge co1'1v.i:C«tled.vV

accused Nos. 4 and 7 for offences punishable 

and 34]. IPC r/w 34 IPC. The lear11»ed  .J'E,'34_CiVf,§€"l'._V Ru

acquitted accused Nos.3. 5, 6. 

punishable 11/8 143. 148.'  3U2_  
Aeeusecl Nos. 1 and 2 '\?".{lx]{) 'd_1'€-;""LIi%§_l'1\lViLT.t.e?C} and-..se'tE1t.e:1c:ed
for an offence u/s  preferred
Criminal Appe'a;l.__'No.:l6.':';'7]'20.0$'.'_jf~._"Clix: 17.8.2006. a
Division   ---'CouI't dismissed
C1'l.A.l\j'o'.hlVll6'5?§,'/ in*»$fie\NA'.ol""the Memo filed by the
accused readln  --
. V   Appellant named above i.e..
Rajalshekaraliah wants to withdraw the
 .above"appeal. He has given letéer to that
' .r.3ff7eCt.V"e~.fl7The letter is produced herewith.
' Tl'1e'j.a'ppeal may be dismissed as not
pressed." -
.A _ .. 2. "The Appellant No.1 -~
V  (}.K.Doddashana.iah has already released

by the Govelwament of Karnataka on the
ground of remission. T he appellant. No.2

--~ Rajashekaraiah now request t. is
I
N M



Horfble Court"

to dismiss the above

appeai as withdraw'r1.- Hence this H0n'ble
Court may be pieased to dismiss the

above

appeal as withdrawn in the_g."' T

interest'. ofjustiee."

3.

In Vi€W of the above, i'o11owir1g_..;30ii1.t:s"--.i}V0uid'"  

arise for dete1'minati<m:--

1)

Whethel' 11'}€~'. prose(?u..1_.ior1  pr<:.xfed:; 
28.12.1997

at 10.45 n.e.ar"fhe:Ifi»duse of one Boraninianaivara' Gidadapaiya, accused V OS -a~ri.d:-7 ft' estrained Car beariiag by deceased CE'1a11di9ap.pa "in the same course of tfa.;1sa;:ti'o_riV.A. "aE_;~Cused Nos.4 and 7 dragged dec:ee1sed&Chandrappa from out of his car azld 'Whether ..v_assai1lted him and caused simpie hurt to him COI}'lr1'1iUI.€(fi'Off€1'lC€S punishable under "'iVse"c£"1o11 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC. the trial (.'.0u1'T. has properiy appreciated the evidence on record? (1

3) Whe'z.her the impugned judgrrxent calls ht for interference '? V

4) What order'?

4. I have heard Sn H.M.'£' nu eottnsei for the accused and Sri learned HCGP for the Staten

5. In brief; ease tori' 'p1*o.s1e;:utie.Ir.is' as foiiows:

There was-.3 '--~l_()ng§ stai:1:ding..t'i--and "dispute between accused'Nesiiandf:-32 Wand deeeased Chandrappa. That on 9.45 p.m.. deceased Chg-1r1d1j21pp2i',~vai'1ci_PW'--=_1VVenkat..esl"1a were proceeding in ' "the '-_.(;2t1*.._"*.C1I"i\Z(:?r1 by "" "the deceased. 'When Car was prV0_CeedVii1g " the house of one Borammanavara Shétn_egQwdéi'..-- Gidadapalya viiiage. all the accused Z""'--__VV';~3tAoppedvthe ear, accused Nos. 4» and '7 dragged deceased _dCVhan.drappa from the car, they surrounded deceased 21ssault.ed him. Accused Nos} and 2 stabbed the ma.

*-u3 deceased with knives and caused his death. Therefore. accused were tried for aforesaid offences. dismissal of Criminal Appeai No.lfi357/ accused Nos. 1 and 2. conviction.

2 for an offence u/s 302 finality. it I» A it A A p

6. The St.at¢,. has « . afjpeal ii against acquittal of accused punishable u/s 143. 141?, also. against the actqtiittall 8.,' 8 to 13 of offences pLz1'1isliabl€:' "l 323 and 341 IPC. 'l'herefore."--.i_n" this_ a+pp::.~;1'_3-. we are C()1]C€r'I1€3(fl with the or otherwxrise of the judgment and conviction of accused 'Nosl.'4--'_and 7 for "offences punishable under 341 ]'/W Section 34 IPC.

in order to bring home the guilt of accused. _lp.1fosecL1i.ior1 has relied on evidence of PW.l to PW.4 and iv. Jami,' evidence of the Iiivestigating Officer and aiso on contents of First: Iriformation Report. ' ii

8. The First Informatiori of the ~ lodged by PW.1 at 12.30p.m.

first mforniation. there is no g?3W.3 near the Piace of first " V information. PW.1 hasinadeVA21§2uiomr;--»i1;iL1sstat.em:er1tthat accused Nos. 1 to assembly-

and w1"ongi'uiI_yfL driven by the deceased. stated accused No.4 a2"2d::'taiieused No.7 Chandrappa din:-lgged the decedasedd i'ror_n the car. Q C.:9.i.j"Th;'e..evideriiieof PW'.1 regarding acts committed and 7 may be stated thus :w hziecused No.7 Nagaraj opened the door ii '"---._ofvNthe Car. Accused No.4 « Padmanabha dra§,gged de('.eased Chaiidrappa from the Car wo§L»e-«4e and accused Nos. 4 and 7' assaulted deceased Charldrappa. At; this juncture. it: is relevant. 1T;o*, state that in the first info1'mation. not stated that E.-1CCL1S€d No.7 opene_d__'t'v_h-6.: T ofcar. and accused No.4 d;-faggeid from the Car. During has deposed that all the car and preV"eii':.ed opeeiriéi the door and eomixig PW'V.I'}e\.vas ".a1sao"' i:.1*aV_e'1~1i13--g~-- in the car. Wheiti -t.11e'e;<:rjVti'1sec}._)Lvho' were as many as 13 in I1ui'1Tb¢I' $'L1I'i;du"naCd the car. ii: looks PW] could have observed _vaeeu.Sed"~-No.7 opening the door and accused the deceased from the car. The '.a"ejvi'dAezieVe of PW.1 that accused Nos. 4 and 7 AA 'K"".\'dSSElLE]ti€d the deceased does not find support. from the medical evidence which would reveal TV QL~&-v~=7g\, that the deceassed had suffered stab injuries which were inflicted by accused N053 i with knives. They had not suffered -1- V or c01"1i:.1si01'}s which would_be,__eauf3ed"

fisting. V ' Evidence of PW.i:Z- '""~I.'_.K. Kempa_1'1i1a be stated thus 2-,.

When thegcaiﬁ accused came accused 1 m__ viilkecused 4 and 7 d'pen_e--d [and dragged deceased Che1'Hd1'ap}5a car and started beating Qhirn with-.._ha1'1d§s. During eross#exami1'1ati0n A deposed that deceased Chandrappa down when he was dragged from 4' the cféir. He did not fa11'd0w1'1 even after he was

10. it is seen from the evidence of PWKI that when the car reached the piace of OC(.'.Ei3'I"€l1C€. accused N<}s.1 to 13 had SLl1'I'()t.1l'1d€d the car. PW.2 was list an inmate of the car. PW.2 was sitting in a i"."I0[(3}_."'*iDV_.):'/edliifvj side of the road. In the circumstances. PW2 that he had seen accused N_0s..4i¢_ and Ru door and dragging t.he deceased f1?j(_')i1nV lmprobabie. The evidence .2 €.;i:- that 4 and 7' started beat_i_I1g deceased"-._with is not supported by medical Pi :-3iVn°aE1eA'§ed"eye:»witness to the incident and whose nafnieiiis nQt."'founi::i in the first information. has deposed that the caijdriven by deceased came near the o.f_'0Cc1i1*3fence. accused I to 13 obstructed and and accused No.7 opened the door of [car uanzd"?.accused No.4 dragged Chandrappa from the it "f_'ea1';.i"«-Accused Nos. 4 and 7 started beating Chandrappa ' with hands. During crosswexarnination, PW.3 asserts N.ag£..a,MJkh that when his statement was recorded by the Police 11 / s 161 Cr.P.C., he had stated that accused No.7 after opening the door, dragged deceased from the car and accused No.4 heid started beating him with hands.

PW.12 who had .3 under Section 161 has dtthaq. \,x,.*;:§1er1 the statement of PW.3 Section 161 C2'.P.C.. PW.3§l1';'tdVL:;1c;1 No.7 Nagaraj opened the the deceased and be_th__ -A heating the deceased 4' ReV'ahna has deposed that accused No.7 ifher-..door and accused No.4 dragged the d€(".'.ti?.1S€':d'fIfQI'I:1;;.vVt:h€? car and both of them started beating 'V Chalidrappa with hands. [)urir1g cmss--examiI1ati0n, he "..fhas'~-asserted that when his statement was recorded by ' l.AAl'-ﬁe 'P"01i(':e under Secti(.m I61 Cr.P.C.. he had stated that W1 ix.' a'V\~~c¢Q.?\.

accused No.4 dragged deceased Chandrappa and accused No.7 opened the door of the accused andhoth accused N0s.4 and 7 started beating Chandrappa with hands. The statement. V' 16] Cr.i3.C., was 1'eC01'ded by I91'-W'§'1'3«. examination, PW.13 has statement of PW/1 was rec0td~ed';V.he that PW.1 was inside the ;:::a{.' stated accused No.7 opened :PW.13 has stated that was recorded.

he Nos.-4 and 7 were beating the V Cvhaiidi-~'appa with hands. was an inmate of the ear. PW.4 has deposed: the time of oecurreriee. I was standing in--A.'fmnt' 7f0fl';fthe house of one Berammanavara in Gidadapalya and he had seen all the A ..f'a.ec'lLi's.ed standing in a group. When the car Came near that place, all the acciusedh obstructed the earf It is obvious that all the accused had surrounded the car. In the ci1*cumstances, PW.4 who was staiiding elsewhere could have hardly observed as to who had door and who had dragged the deceased Ii. The learned evidence of PWs.1 to 4 to hold"

and 8 to 13 were the They had '(:ai'vkdi:ivei'1 by deceased. Theyhad However.

the learned evidence of PWs 1171.0 4' hold"ith'at:aecL1"sed 4 and 7 had dragged the .deceas'e4ddifrvo1V"fi assaulted him. 4;'1'2.. Fro1"n.,_thVe discussion made above. it is ciear PW.3 was not mentioned in the first infor.1fnation,_ 'Tiie evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated

-- i"rorn°' t.1'i~e (Eti11t.(;'ntS of first information report. The 'i i"K'te's{.ia';3(>n'ies of PWs.2 to 4 that accused Nose'; and 7 had

-- the deceased from the car and assauited him N-C/>cQ/\ A~wL_ are f'C>ur1cl to be omissions amounting to material contradictions in their statements recorded §;{I1,der Section 161 Cr.P.C.

13. The learned Sessions qigdge withoﬁ these discrepancies. has held .:. guiity of offences pL1nisiﬁV{;§bE.e fpch. » "

The iearned S€SSiOI1S:'_eJL1dg¢i,...iiveie3_1i3i]E3(i1.'f,(}:,i1()I§(T€ that there was 110 l'I1E:'.di(','c'1viH' that accused N054 and 7 iehieiiiecteased. The learned iewhsoiice that as per the e\Ii:('i_en(.cA the accused had stopped the car. I41'-Qwevef. the ieéefned S€.'.SSi()I"lS Judge has given ben£"ﬁ!t'V0if doubt other accused relating to an offence 1: i«nd.id;1__Penal Code. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 accused N054 and 7 dragging the 'V deceaised.AVffom the ear does not inspire confidence. As if:-.2Ii*<éa<iy stated. evidence of' PWS I to 4 that accused and 7' had beat: the cieceased with theifhands N; C£""""9M"'0'"'"

and caused simple hurt to him does not find support from the medical 63\-'idE3r1CE§. In the eirctumst__an:ee_'s;\V_« findings recorded by the learned Sessions J3-_ﬁ1ge"

accused N0s.4 and 7' are guiity ofoifeéncesi";i5u§51:isiiabEVe Li/S 323 and 3411 Cannot be s11stai1:ied§:._A_'i *

14. In the result, a1ppee11s'a1_'e 1cce;.)t,ed.' Atgcrused Nos.4 and 7 in S.C.'1\V:I_€i';.E34/fﬁil9Q8':.._Qij'~--.t11e vfilieifof the Principal Sessions Judge_V:i'a{.V 'é§'r;§:'.V--~acquitted of offences pur1i_s?ie1lQ;e u 3325afi'd::VZ§~?1»'1v--..I.§5C. Bail bonds execut:eci by aec:used"'~1\léi):s. 4 'and'vi.7'«.sh'ai1 {stand cancelled. nv 335%"

J1:{d§é

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court