State By Sira Rural Police vs Prasanna S/O Rudraiah on 27 May, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State By Sira Rural Police vs Prasanna S/O Rudraiah on 27 May, 2009

Bench: Jawad Rahim

1

IN "me 3155 caum or KARNATAKA AT BuANGAL§)R!E":.:'_ ~.V'

amen THIS THE 2??" DAY OF MAY 2004"' ' V:-.[    _

BEFORE

THE HON'8i..E MR. JUS11CE:'»JA\h§A{§v  %   é - 7

EBLA.   %   %
BETWEEN : .   %
STATE BY SIRA Rum. mutg   

  _   
(831 Sri RNA SUERAHMANVA mm, Hpmy 

AND :

1 PRASﬁ;§SVr§;§--1§i¢;§'--..R:Uf3?}XI.¢;Fi'_ 
AGED 2%E3.\'-E%§RS   ._  
Agsaicu 1;:;'uR:3T.. Ll£lf\if5A':'i1iT"« 

2 sBAﬁs<ARAIA;H4Si:i%'%émJAPPA
Acaeazz 24 vemzs; Acagxcummsr,

3 4;ESHWAxRAIAH"'
%% L«s;Q $:ﬁDAPP:1,,...30 YEARS,

  % k VPREMAMJMAR

 %s;*::*krqA:«i:A??A, 22 YEARS,

5 %  K  mimiesa
SfCé._CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA

 _ _ Q ZNKEARS,

V' ' --  R,/*0 KALSHETTYHALLI VILLAGE

SIRA TALUK,

TUMKUR DIST.
 RESPONDENTS

(BY Sri K MURTHY, ADV.) 5""

CRL.AP?EAl. IS FILED UiS.378(1)& (3) C.'R.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FER THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HUMBLE COURT MAY BE F'LEASEB T0 GRANT LEAVE T0 FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT. 26.12.2002 PASSED BY THE II ABEL. DIST. AND 5.3., TUMKURTIN SP¥...CASE.f\iO. 309;'G1, ACQUITTING THE 5{E$PO!'\Si?E'F~$.TS- ACCUSE£'} ma THE Of-'FENCES Piuiss. 147, ;4;s.,..%%.'~5..1;:3,' 324, 596 19:; AND sec. 3(:)(x) c:z= sc./57 {non}. Act"; 1939;... R/"W SEC. 149 GF IPC.

This appeai gaming on for hearizhé fzifxisv tfay', deﬁvered the following ' _ The State is in aweai in 5391.

Case 3&9/'G1 on the cf s.:_ﬁ'a§Iiéi--§--.'L'vvvL !:)§i.et»r*ict & Sessions Juana,V.»""i"z3:*§§§A§§.;:i=:':¢I;:,;éatég-_' 261.:;2';2ao2 acquittirsa the resper*:d3£-ﬁté_ Sections 143, 14?, 148, 323, 324érmAso$..1.r:..%f«:;}§ncs unéer Secticm 3(1)(x) af the __Caisé'e'-..&..«Schaduled Tribe (Preverztien of ﬁ:£fé:itié$)~A'x:£,"'1.98?9.

2, .1Haér.d tii;t%*§ sides.

_ 3. T?:eé'ééii1iextuai facts are:

.. ax)".-Eff: the repert submitted by PW}. (Hanumaﬁthaiah) .._"iz>_"th%.£ jurisdsctsenai pence aueama that an 24.11.1997 in ..K--;*3:§iaShé§tih3li} vitiaaé, same rrersens beicsnaiﬁe ta Gaiia 3 cammzmity wera seiiina green ieaves an the said'":ioad aicm with other viiiaaers whc were sei§ing.'_'§éé"$e§Vs;V. Acr:'u'sed~1 (Prasanrza) 'whiie riding his €'§5*I'Z'",ji:'&v '§ﬁV f!i.é_f carsgested area, was peddiiﬁa oi:-'the4v2_mne_;v.é§t§a_'éf £'hé': mad, causinﬁ irrcemrenience. Th__di2gh s§rzie..wef.:é§e"n$"~. natited him and maﬁa way, h&.§i=ﬁ? not" r*aaiisiéj'vhi§*;f%iiSt$i(e. 'V However, when some 3rs%t;;*x1en'V.:sai4ﬁte~é "o_;1t té his mvisdeeﬁs, be abused them araé t;he"3¥?z;e "'5_aid Incident is said ta have ogcsrﬁgd 7 féiiiigayihﬁdéy; "_E".'é."é5.11.1997, keeping in mind vv ¥':_at° irae1§p§:§e§ 'Ti!§%A1-:§§:Vja§ious day, and past enmity between ﬁin*z..and:V$:hé~.,_§:t22?§*:;:»fai21ant arm others, Prasarma s.;1ppc¥§ed« .... to have erziistw the suwort of S!§§:2Vkas*a§a!:'«{;6u_2), Prmkumar (A-3), Narasaiah (A-4), R:s5%re'sh%(;é;s§%j%%L%and Eghwarasaea (A-6); ail 61' than formed jfrztc: 4"a:1V"'L§n§'é}vwfui assémbiy and armed themseivw with "4 ¢iiGTﬁ'i3s;er§" and dubs and wayiald the compiainant and éféjérﬁ. Accused are aﬂeaad to have induiqed in acts cf ' " hiééﬁienca in frant at' the house of F-'W3 (Narasaiah).

6%"

c) Séema the accused attempting to assauiji-..»t'i2g compiainant, PW3-Narasaiah rushed to his :'§ §--.'i;.V!:é',,' accused assauited him on the iefz..,Vpg4rtia_rz""6'$.ii'h¥E$ f':h'¢st;V: "' 2 using a chopper. Simiiariy, Lakshmikantha and made atﬁérnpt 051-v.«$§i:«e:fs;'v £.§§;'ac:a.

and M3 had suffered %injurs:s# L%'tsv§e;<k%w§.veke> %gu5n¢¢ to the hcrspita! and a report submftted ta Kaiiambeiia PoliceVStatisnih.fay' 5?};1(1 a§ﬁ;'::"iv6;15 hours on 25.11.1991 3.4.: 'a'ﬁ:er invatiaatzan, charee shﬁea€t--.3gw§;é§ §V %3:§§used far the offances indftatﬂd *

d) VVf::r§.;afi;..v_";3'2i;:§ses:ution examined It': an 13 atfad ;5¥as:a::....reiiance on 9 docurnents. Accused a'é:i:~e¢_ '_::I":::"a.s*ae and in their defense rdied on the s#t&§ér':1eV§9its,u7é§f (Siddaqanaaiah) marked as 5:15.91 and 'D2. Etéugédl had ﬁat up defense of denia! and cnentended v V' ..j§hieirL '%f;av§ been faisefy lmsiicated.

e) Cansiderina the evidence, the iearrseé triad judge ' :~ dec:Iined ta accept the prcasecution evidence and acquitted W 5 the accused, giving tham the beneﬁt of doubt. Acerjéyed by the said arder, the State has preferreﬁ this "

4. Learned Govt. Pleader, Sri Raj3_Subfé'hﬁ;é:a;Vn§'a ' would centend that PW1 had in two incidents, me an 24.11;'19s;_7 mfg me%ac;umm aileaed to have abused thgﬁ"§:§n:§_fain.ér:t.ivlgngfi others referring ta their c*:ast§=*:-._."'i"a;A:':'L'--V1.L. ""ei;if:.q;-gr ﬁn 25.11.1997 where they assauited tihve$2!§:f:i:*f':s;»§;f: ?raffg¥Cite? the house of PW3. beionead ta SchedulVe.»d--wCjai' sti. é, %e§rri'£ia to their caste brings their ac:i't_w§t'hiﬁ cf the Scheduled Caste 3:

scheduzeémba (i9tféi.Vr:§i*'st:'i:::€s'r:' of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He fuz"tfxe;f usVu~brvnit$"tF;at___p[wsical assauit on the victims brings offence punishable under Sections 323 a'm:t;'%324,%iL'F%.c;%~LLA%%% '5. Leaékned Gevt. Header submits the compiainant has, V§1_$§f:*apott dated 25.11.1997, stated that pwz and PW3 V' V'""...' j «._;v;;_§'?fa:'ed injuries at the hands cf accused nos.1 and 3. :."Ther-efore, the ieamed triai judge was required ta carssider $5' 6 'whether the version 61' the victims estabiishes the charge, even if there are any discrwancies in the evidence cf He refers to the medical evidénce which _ suﬁerance af injuries by PW2 and PW}, How2eva.?§}:'~_h§é'~fai21y " v acknowiedaa the fact that the ev£?z£en«;eAA.¢$f"'t>y§.%.1 "V963; ccmsistent on materiat particu!mfs.5._V V _ _

6. Learned cazmsei far the fets;)ande:i"ts._.""c>:§: tﬁg other hand, supperts the impuﬁfied pciiiisbut lick Q cf ccnsistency in the &vi;;1_g§':c§g i$fV>t§he"«a;v§§é§_s;f a§nant as aisa victims riérhetﬁé;vr,9v$5§:§§'Laké.ti:2iiké'ﬁtﬁé§ and PW3-Narasaiah.

7. Keﬁirjain' miVrié!'A'»§4§:"a:t 'is . urged, I have examined the evidgfgﬁé and §eas§h$ éésiﬁned by the teamed triai juéee.

TU'n;§¢éjia{éd§y, the c:>mpIainant's evidence wouiﬁ be nf.'irr} ;:-6rtaj'§1;i;€=;_i£>vVknow the facts reiatina tn the occurrercca, 'was he'1i:3ih;eVone who has set the my in math:-n. There is A '~:Lh{§,VVT:dispute that the camxsiairaant had referred ta twa *.___"V"."in£:idénts, one an 24.11.1997 and the other on .é5.11.199?. Hcwever, the La. semas ta have ccmcerstrated may on the iatter incident, he. 25.11.1991 3,33% 7' PW1 has admittediy mt reveaied any act of viaience by the accused against him or others on 25.11.!199?_. _.:_'f?3_e commainant has emtihasized in his reporft'_:""t§$a§'--.I:

25.11.1997 accused nos.1 to 5 made attern:§f.:"je:i"*!i:is.ji-5;"

near the hause of PW3 whichT:}zvas:."g1'a£ir:éd.' Lakshmikantha and PW3-Narasa_iah;"'..i§V€3 \A*.:':'6 {O his rescue himseif became the1v'VLv§:§fimV at th«§ti1v§n§$ cf A-2 (Sharrkaraiah). Fmfz-L$j_(shln.iAéK§:Aﬁiﬁ§ﬁseaa ﬁsﬁauit was by A-+4 (Premkumar) c:nAvV_i"Vr_i 1s_ and that he saw him 3SS3i3"¥f§'i"§§: P\M?+4v\§i_1:i"i; a _'c!§ t)§5'barVV':A(M.0.1). He aiso aIieqes:._$er_ivcfAu$vjass§v§zli céusinq injuries ta his right icﬁee. '1a§;ai'a":V-.=5.{t' : sja:>:::'h~ﬁsiidence, Pwl aileges ail the accused Ljai:{én§.vAAto'ﬁetf'iarané assauited PW2 and PW3. =7:V"".~aini'i'i'2i:ﬁ&§jP'§V3§-?~.1a:;éé§§ah alieaa assault on PW: by A-4 aviih. 'V exacaerates that PW1 fen down with injuriqés 1:9 shauider. He also aiiaaas assauit by A-4 TPW2,,_.A3but with haradg. so far as assauit an him is T:"'{i;2's*:r;e:ir'ned, he daes not say he was assauited with a . ggéblmachu, but with a wooden pea. The {earned triai » juéae has noticed this ﬁiscrepancy in the evidence. The 8 .

/rzs inconsisteracy in their evidence so apsparent, it nuvl1i'?i§ss._ the alieeaticms maﬁa in the compiaint itself. _ canrmt ianore that PW: having ldenﬁfigd as ' > cbjects used in the assauit, coupfed statement that when mahazar";'eqardi"ﬁg"'se;zu.if$ . two articia wag being V_prepar¢§:§i;'<.V',Vﬁe._Vwa'§'*ﬁ't_'vi:hé';pcslice station and that he did :_:f 1 and 2 under the said fnahazair; _h'é'dr§ a§'I;;%§ﬁal§zed on the admissién cf _ during seizure of M.0s._1__ statements of PW2 and as In the resuitant pasiticm, fizaj' ieéri1é€§V..'Aj2§&'gté"fbund avidence net infusing cenfiﬁgéﬁce ta .Vac:e_ :5t" an d récord acquittai. :,c;~r§ur§ds ureed in this appeal against such ca n§iiJ§io:f«g %..**a;::*i. 1'f:iardiy be accented. I am satisﬁed in the *~.,., r_ civen situation, when the prcsecution evidence is A 5Lfi1s'a%Ac;§;$i*tsistent and brings out no direct incuipatina aspects V' against the accused ta subvert the charge, mere aﬂeaation was not enwgh.

9 -.

10. Accmittaf retarded by the iearnw trial judo£2V~§§§s3fe:$ from no inﬁrmity and :19 case is made out to the said ccrder. Hence, the appeaif; ﬁ_ism!_3;=:"e'::.'-- };§:ﬁf£:r:i1iVng': "' the ﬁndirao cf the iearned triaii, jtgdeé 'aéa%§z§tz§§iéA*&%.:ne%j' accused. The apaaeai stands :«"'fej"ag:f.téd ."'-.. vah*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court