Karnataka High Court
Chowdappa @ Badagi Chowdappa S/O ... vs State Public Prosecutor on 6 November, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.555/2006
BETWEEN:
1. CHOWDAPPA @ BADAGI CHOWDAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
2. VENKATARAMANA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
3. HANUMAPPA
S/O KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
4. MANJAPPA
S/O KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
5. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
2
6. KARIYAMMA
W/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
7. PARVATHI
W/O CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
8. P MANJAPPA
S/O PAKEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
9. RATHNAMMA
W/O MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
10. RAGHU
S/O P MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
11. APPANAIKA
S/O NAGANAIKA
REPORTED DEAD OFFENCE ABATED
12. SRINIVASA
S/O APPUNAIKA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
13. MANJUNATHA
S/O MANJA NAIKA
3
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
14. GIRISH
S/O GANESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
15. RAMESH
S/O HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/OF HANIGERE VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S S KOTI & V S KOTI, ADVS.)
AND:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE STATION, SAGAR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
( BY SRI.B.T.VENKATESH, SPP-II )
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.02.2006 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT & FAST TRACK COURT-II, SHIMOGA IN S.C.NO.
84/2004, CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS-ACCUSED NOS. 1, 4,
8, 12 & 13 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 R/W 149 IPC & APPELLANTS-
ACCUSED NO.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 & 15 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341 R/W 149 IPC & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
The appellants arrayed as accused Nos.1, 4, 8, 12, 13 were tried along with accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 14 and 15 (accused No.11 died during trial) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 341 r/w 149 IPC.
Accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 307 r/w 149 IPC.
Accused no.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC, however, they were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC.
Accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 have filed this appeal against judgment of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC.
Accused no.2, 3, 5 to 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC. 5
2. The State has not filed appeal against judgment of acquittal of Accused no.2, 3, 5 to 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC.
3. In this appeal, the following points would arise for determination:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 were the members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 assaulted PW.2-Suresha and PW.3-Ranjana (wife of PW.2) with deadly weapons in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village at about 6.30 p.m., on 01.01.2004 thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the course of same transaction, accused no.1 to 10 and 12 to 15 being the members of unlawful assembly restrained PW's.2 and 6 3 in Sy.No.17 of Henigere village at about 6.30 p.m., on 01.01.2004 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the course of same transaction, accused no.1 being the member of unlawful assembly assaulted PW.2-Suresha with a chopper with such intention and knowledge that if he had caused death of PW2, he would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, thereby accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 being the members of unlawful assembly committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the course of same transaction, no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 being the members of unlawful assembly assaulted PW.3-Ranjana with deadly weapons and caused hurt to PW3, thereby accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 have committed an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC ? 7
5) Whether the learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence?
6) What Order ?
My findings on the above points and reasons thereof are as follows:
Re. Point no.1 & 2
4. At the outset, it is necessary to state that, the prosecution has contended that PW.2-Suresha is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village and he was constructing a shed in that land, whereas, the accused have contended that Sy.No.17 is a part of forest land. The prosecution has not produced documentary evidence to prove that PW.2-Suresha is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village. PW6 and PW7 have admitted the place where PW2 was constructing a shed is a part of forest.
5. The essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC are that, the accused should have 8 voluntarily obstructed any person so as to prevent any person from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed.
6. In the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to prove that PW.2 was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village. The prosecution has failed to prove that PW's.2 and 3 had right to proceed in land bearing Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village. Even if it is assumed that accused had obstructed, in the absence of any evidence regarding ownership of land or right of PW's.2 and 3 to proceed in that land, it is not possible to hold that accused had wrongfully restrained PW's.2 and 3. On the other hand, PW's.6 and 7 have admitted that PW.2 was constructing a hut/house in the forest land, there were few trees, PW.2 had not grown Banana plants, PW.2 had not raised Areca and coconut trees in the said land. PW.2 has not produced documentary evidence to prove ownership or possession of land bearing Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village. The evidence of PW's.6 and 7 is sufficient to hold that PW.2 was constructing a house/hut in the forest land and it was not a private land. 9
7. It is not the case of prosecution that PW's.2 and 3 had right to proceed in the forest land, which is meant for community. PW's.2 and 3 having asserted that PW.2 is the owner of 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village have not produced necessary documents to prove the same. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused no.1 to 10, 12 to 14 had committed an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC. Therefore, I answer point no.2 in the negative.
Re. Points No.3 to 5
8. It is seen from the evidence adduced by prosecution that there is scramble between PW.2 on one side and accused no.1 on other side regarding ownership of land bearing in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village. PW.2 has asserted that he is the owner in possession of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village whereas, the accused have asserted that land bearing Sy.No.17 is a forest land and PW.2 was illegally trying to encroach upon the forest land in Sy.no.17 of Henigere village. Even if it is assumed that PW.2 10 had encroached a part of forest land bearing Sy.no.17, that would not absolve the accused of their guilt if it is proved by the prosecution that aforestated accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 had assaulted PW's.2 and 3.
9. The law is fairly well settled that accused can exercise right of private defence both in relation to his person and property only if there is no time for him to have course to process of law or in other words the accused had no time to approach the lawful authorities to complain against the illegal acts committed against their property or person.
10. In the case on hand, the accused have contended that the land in question belongs to Forest Department. Even if PW.2 had committed illegal acts, the accused should have taken recourse to law.
11. The prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW.2-Suresha (injured witness), PW.3-Ranjana (injured witness and wife of PW.2), PW.6-Ramesha, PW.7-Sandeepa, PW.9-Gopala and PW.10-Parthiva. 11
12. PW.2-Suresha has deposed; that on 01.01.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., he had gone to land bearing Sy.no.17 of Hanigere village to provide Tea to the labourers working in their land. His wife (PW.3-Ranjana) had accompanied him. At that time, the accused came in a group and surrounded them. The accused asserted that land belongs to them. Accused no.1 assaulted on the hind portion of head of PW.2 with a chopper. Accused no.8 and 13 assaulted him with clubs.
PW.2 has deposed; that first accused assaulted on the head of PW.3 with a chopper and other accused trampled PW.3. PW's 2 and 3 were shifted to General Hospital at Sagar, after preliminary treatment, they were shifted and admitted in KMC Hospital at Manipal. PW.2 has deposed; that his clothes were stained with blood. He has deposed; that at the time of incident, witnesses namely PW.6-Ramesha, PW.7-Sandeepa, PW.9-Gopala and PW.10-Parthiva had come to work in his land.
Much of the cross-examination of PW.2 is concentrated about dispute over the land bearing Sy.no.17 of 12 Hanigere village. PW.2 was also cross-examined about minute details relating to manner of assault and weapons held and wielded by each of the accused. It was also suggested to PW2 that accused no.1-Chowdappa had suffered injuries at the hands of PW.2 and other prosecution witnesses and he had been admitted to hospital. PW.2 has admitted that accused no.1 had reached General Hospital at Sagar before PW.2 had been taken to that hospital.
13. It is seen from the evidence of PW.2 that there is dispute between PW.2 and accused no.1 regarding possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.no.17 of Hanigere village. There is no clinching evidence on record to hold that PW.2 was the owner of land bearing Sy.no.17 of Hanigere village. The fact remains that there was scramble between PW.2 and accused regarding possession of land bearing Sy.No.17. On this ground, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be brushed aside however, it requires a careful scrutiny before acceptance.
13
14. PW.1-Dr.K.R.Prakash had treated PW.2-Suresha at 8.00 p.m., on 01.01.2004 in General Hospital at Sagar. PW1 found the following injuries:
i) Cut incise wound on the scalp over the occipital region measuring 6 cms x 1.5 cms x 1.5 cms two numbers
ii) Bruise on the back over right scapular region measuring 10 cm x 2 cm
iii) Bruise on the right arm measuring 8 cm x 2 cm
iv) Bruise on the left shoulder over the summit measuring 10 cm x 2 cm
v) Bruise on the right hand over the dorso-medial aspect measuring 7 cm x 4 cm, swelling present, suspected facture metacarpal IV & V right.
As advised by PW.1, PW.2-Suresha was shifted and admitted in KMC Hospital at Manipal. PW.1 after receipt of report from KMC Hospital has opined that PW.2 had suffered fracture of 4th and 5th right metacarpal. He has opined that injury no.5 was grievous in nature.
Thus, evidence of PW.2 finds corroboration from medical evidence.
14
15. The learned counsel for accused would submit that Doctors from KMC Hospital were not examined before the trial court and X-rays taken in Manipal Hospital were not produced before the trial court.
The reports of KMC Hospital, Manipal as per Ex.P5 and P6 would reveal that PW.2 had suffered fracture of 4th and 5th right metacarpals. The contents of these documents have not been controverted. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for accused cannot be accepted.
16. PW.3-Ranjana is the wife of PW.2-Suresha. PW.3 had accompanied her husband to the place of incident at about 6.00 p.m., on 01.01.2004.
PW.3 has deposed; that accused no.1-Chowdappa, accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 assaulted PW.2. When she interfered to save her husband, accused no.1-Chowdappa assaulted on the hind portion of her head with a chopper and her skull bones were fractured. Accused no.4, 8 and 13 assaulted her and trampled her. She was initially treated in 15 General Hospital at Sagar and later she was treated in KMC Hospital at Manipal. She has identified her blood stained clothes and weapons of offence.
During cross-examination, PW.3 has admitted that PW.2 (her husband) had obtained power of attorney and he was cultivating the said land since 12 years prior to the date of incident. They had planted Areca and coconut trees; the accused had damaged the saplings. There was scramble between PW.2 on one side and first accused on other side.
PW.3 has deposed; that when she intervened to save her husband, accused no.1 assaulted on the hind portion of head of her husband (PW.2) with a chopper. She has deposed that accused no.4 and 13 assaulted her with a chopper; accused no.8 and 12 trampled her. Much of the cross-examination of PW.3 is directed towards dispute between PW.2 and accused regarding ownership and possession of land bearing Sy.no.17 of Hanigere village.
17. PW.1-Dr.K.R.Prakash examined PW.3-Ranjana at 7.00 p.m., on 01.01.2004 in General Hospital at Sagar and found the following injuries:
16
i) Cut lacerated injury over the vertex in the left parietal region measuring 8 cm x 1 ½ cm x 1 ½ cm
ii) Suspected depressed fracture of skull vault beneath cut injuries.
The discharge summary issued by Kasturba Hospital at Manipal (marked as per Ex.P6) would reveal that PW.3 had suffered depressed fracture of left parietal bone with specks contusion and pneumocephalus.
The evidence of PW.3 finds substantial corroboration from evidence of PW.1 and medical evidence and discharge summary.
18. PW.6-Ramesha has deposed; that on 01.01.2004, he had gone to work in the land of PW.2-Suresha (land bearing Sy.No.17) along with other witnesses namely PW.9-Gopala, PW.10-Parthiva and one Abhishek and Nagendra. They had gone to the land of PW.2 to construct a shed. They had completed the work by 6.00 p.m., and waiting for arrival of PW.2-Suresha. At about 6.00 p.m., Suresha came to the land. Accused no.1 to 15 came to the place and abused PW.2-Suresha. Accused no.1 assaulted on 17 the hind portion of head of Suresha with a chopper. Accused no.1 also assaulted on the hind portion of head of PW.3 with a chopper. The rest of the accused assaulted PW's.2 and 3 with clubs. Accused no.2 assaulted them with a club.
During cross-examination, he has denied a suggestion that his village Jaipura is at a distance of 50 Kms., from the place of incident (Hanigere).
PW.6 is an independent witness. He was neither interested in the success of prosecution nor he had enmity with the accused. There are no reasons to suspect the evidence of PW.6. Therefore, evidence of PW.6 that accused no.1 assaulted PW's.2 and 3 with a chopper and accused no.2 assaulted PW's.2 and 3 with a club lends substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW's.2 and 3.
19. The evidence of PW.7 is similar to the evidence of PW.6. PW.7-Sandeepa has deposed that accused no.1 assaulted PW.2-Suresha and PW.3-Ranjana with a chopper. They suffered injuries to their heads. The rest of the accused assaulted them with clubs.
18
During cross-examination, he has admitted that they had constructed a hut/house in the forest land. The surrounding land was not under cultivation. Thus, we find that PW.2 had engaged PW.6 and other witnesses to construct a Shed/Hut in a part of forest land. We also find that the surrounding land was not under cultivation. The evidence of these witnesses to certain extent would probabalise the defence version that PW.2 was encroaching a part of forest land in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere Village.
20. PW.9-Gopala has deposed; that on 01.01.2004, he had gone to the place of incident (Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village) to construct a hut as per the instructions of PW.2- Suresha. PW.9 and other witnesses constructed a hut till 6.00 p.m. At that time, accused no.1 to 15 came to that place. PW.2-Suresha and PW.3-Ranjana had brought Tea to the labourers who were engaged to construct a hut/shed in that land. The accused assaulted PW's.2 and 3 and he is not able to identify the accused who had assaulted PW's.2 and 3. Accused no.1 to 10 and 12 to 15 were armed with deadly 19 weapons. He has admitted that place where PW's.2 and 3 were constructing a shed/hut was a disputed land.
21. The evidence of PW.9 is rather omnibus in nature. He has deposed; that accused no.1 to 10 and 12 to 15 had assaulted PW's.2 and 3 with a chopper and clubs which is not the case put forth by the prosecution. Yet the evidence of this witness that there was an incident of assault on PW's.2 and 3 near the place of incident at 6.00 p.m., on 01.01.2004 lends corroboration to the evidence of PW's.2 and 3.
22. PW.10-Parthiva has deposed; that on 01.01.2004, he had gone to construct a hut/house near the place of incident. The work was stopped when it was half way through. They were waiting for arrival of PW.2. At 6.00 p.m., PW's.2 and 3 came to that place. The accused came and attacked PW's.2 and 3. They were large in number. They were armed with weapons like Chopper and clubs. Accused no.1 assaulted on the neck of PW.2-Suresha with a chopper and the rest of the accused assaulted PW.2-Suresha with clubs. Accused no.4-Manjappa assaulted on the head of PW.2.
20
During cross-examination of PW.10, minute details regarding manner of assault, nature of weapons held and wielded by the accused have been elicited, which in my considered opinion do not touch upon credibility of evidence of this witness. This witness is a disinterested witness.
The evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses relate to seizure of incriminating articles.
23. Thus, on overall appreciation of evidence, we find that PW.2 was constructing a hut/house in the forest land but, PW.2 had asserted that he was the owner in possession of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village. The prosecution has not produced documentary evidence in proof of the same.
24. The prosecution witness namely PW.7-Sandeepa has admitted that they were constructing a hut/shed in the forest land; similarly, PW.6 has admitted that the place of incident is forest land; PW.2-Suresha had constructed a shed in the forest land and there were big trees in that land. PW.2-Suresha had not grown Arecanut and coconut trees or 21 Plantain crops. Added to this, accused no.1-Chowdappa had suffered injuries in the course of same transaction. In order to prove the same, he has given oral evidence and produced documentary evidence as per Ex.D4, wound certificate issued by the Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sagar. The copy of wound certificate (Ex.D4) would reveal that accused no.1 had suffered following injuries:
1) Bruise over the right shoulder measuring 10 cms x 5 cms.
2) Bruise on the back measuring 5 cms x 3 cms
25. The first accused has produced documentary evidence to show that complaint given by him was investigated by the Investigation Officer and final 'B' report was filed. Yet the fact remains, accused no.1 had suffered injuries in the course of same transaction. In the circumstances, the prosecution can invoke Section 149 against the accused if it is found that there is consistent, credible evidence of two witnesses regarding participation of each of the accused. The proved facts would give room to a reasonable doubt whether the accused had assaulted 22 PW.2-Suresha and PW.3-Ranjana with intention and knowledge if the acts committed by them had caused death of PW2, they would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Yet the proved fact remains that PW.2 and 3 had suffered grievous injuries.
26. As already stated, there is consistent evidence of PW's.2 and 3 and other prosecution witnesses namely PW.6- Ramesha, PW.7-Sandeepa, PW.9-Gopala and PW.10-Parthiva regarding presence and participation of accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 however, there is no evidence on record to show that accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 had formed unlawful assembly with the common object of causing injuries to PW's.2 and 3.
In view of injuries suffered by accused no.1 and the scramble between accused no.1 and PW.2 regarding possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.17 of Hanigere village, it is difficult to hold that accused no1 had assaulted PW's.2 and 3 with such intention and knowledge if they had 23 caused death of PW2, that they would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
27. The evidence on record, in particular, the oral evidence of injured witness and eyewitnesses and medical evidence of PW.1 would establish that PW's.2 and 3 had suffered grievous injuries. It is also established that they had suffered grievous injuries at the hands of accused no.1. It is also established that accused no.1 used deadly weapons on PW.2 and 3. As regards accused 4, 8, 12 and 13, the evidence on record is hardly sufficient to hold that they were the members of unlawful assembly and they had shared common intention.
28. In a decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 (in the case of Masalti -v- State of Uttar Pradesh), the Supreme Court has held:
"(e) Evidence - Appreciation - Criminal trial -
Some members of unlawful assembly assaulting with weapons, including guns - Death of some victims - Duty of Court in appreciating evidence - Penal Code (1860), S.302/149.
Where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the 24 common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crown of persons armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. Where for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected. Appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is no doubt a difficult task; but criminal courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not. (Para 15)
(f) Evidence Act (1872), S.134- Number of witnesses.
It is true that under the Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. But where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical, but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses who give evidence. But 25 sometimes it is useful to adopt a mechanical test. (para 16)"
29. In my considered opinion, accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts committed by accused no.1. In the discussion made supra, I have held that accused no.1 had caused grievous injuries to PW's.2 and 3 with deadly weapon. Accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 had used criminal force and they had assaulted PW's.2 and 3. There is no consistent evidence that accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 had used dangerous weapons to assault PW's.2 and 3. Therefore, accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 can be held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
30. The learned trial judge appears to have been swayed away by the injuries suffered by PW's.2 and 3. The learned trial judge has ignored the evidence required to fasten vicarious criminal liability under Section 149 IPC. The learned trial judge has ignored the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 341 IPC and evidence necessary to prove an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment requires modification. 26
31. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused no.1 to 10, 12 to 15 for an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC is set aside. Accused no.1 to 10, 12 to 15 are acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC.
Accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 are acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC.
Accused no.1 is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
Having regard to nature of injuries inflicted by accused no.1 and the circumstances under which the offence was committed, accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
27
Accused no.4, 8, 12 and 13 are convicted of an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. They are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
Out of the fine amount paid by the accused, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each shall be paid as compensation to PW.2- Suresha and PW.3-Ranjana.
The period of detention undergone by the accused no.1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 is given set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-