Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Prashanth Nairy on 1 February, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1365/2012 (A)
BETWEEN
The State of Karnataka
By Subramanyapura
Police Station. ...Appellant
(By Sri.P.M.Nawaz, Addl.S.P.P.)
AND:
Prashanth Nairy
Jananath Nairy
Aged about 36 years
R/at No.10/5, Near Post Office
Doddakallasandra
Bangalore - 560 062. ... Respondent
This Crl.A. is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3)
Cr.P.C. praying to appeal against the Judgment and
order of acquittal dated 30.03.2012 passed by the P.O.,
FTC - I, Bangalore in S.C.No.951/2011 acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offence P/U/S.307 of IPC.
This Crl.A. coming on for orders this day,
K.L.Manjunath J., delivered the following:-
2
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State for admission.
2. The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - I, Bangalore, dated 30th March, 2012 in Session Case No.951/2011.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Kantharaju-PW.1, charge sheet was filed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 and the respondent were running a work shop under the name and style of Raghavendra Engineering Works at Chunchughatta and they suffered loss in their business. The respondent requested the complainant to return his investment in the firm. It was mediated through a common friend by name Krishna and the amount was settled for Rs.65,000/-. PW.1 agreed to 3 pay the amount within three month and he had issued a cheque for Rs.60,000/- and demanded the respondent to return the agreement. Though the cheque was received, the agreement was not returned by the respondent on the ground that he would return the same after the payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and that on 27.11.2010 at about 6 p.m the respondent entered the Engineering Works shop of the complainant and demanded PW.1 to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/-, for which the complainant requested the respondent to give accommodation for three or four days to clear the balance. The respondent having not agreed to give accommodation for three or four days tried to take away a lathe machine of the complainant and in order to remove the machine, the respondent pushed the complainant and took the machine tool and assaulted on his head. The complainant fell down and respondent started pressing his neck by sitting on the chest. One Paramesh, a neighbour pacified them and took the complainant to 4 the hospital. In the hospital, Subramanyanagar police recorded the statement of the complainant as per Ex.P.1 and the same was registered in Crime No.646/2010, accordingly, he was charge sheeted after investigation.
5. The respondent pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 10, Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MOs.1 and 2. The respondent denied all the incriminating circumstances while answering 313 statement and no defence evidence was let in.
7. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties, formulated the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27.11.2010 at about 6.00 PM at Raghavendra Engineering Works, Bank Colony, Chunchughatta, Bangalore, accused inflicted such injuries with machine tool on the head of CW.1 Kantharaju and tried to smothering him by pressing his neck by sitting on his chest, so that had he died due to said injuries and 5 accused would have been guilty of murder thereby accused attempted to murder CW.1 and committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC?
2. What order?
7. On careful scrutiny of the evidence and arguments advanced by the parties, point No.1 was held in negative and accordingly, the respondent was acquitted by order dated 30th March, 2012. This judgment is called in question in this appeal.
8. Learned Addl.S.P.P. submits that the Sessions Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 - Dr.Manjuprakash, who issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.3. According to him, there are no reasons for the Sessions Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. The injury sustained by PW.1 has been proved by examining Dr.Manjuprakash -PW.5 by producing Ex.P.3. He also contends that there was no reason for the Session Court to disbelieve the testimony of the eyewitnesses PWs.2, 4 and 6. In the 6 circumstances, he requests the Court to reverse the findings of the trial Court and convict the accused.
9. Having heard the learned Addl.S.P.P., we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal for the following reasons:-
Even according to the prosecution, the accused and the complainant - PW.1 were partners in an Engineering Works Shop. According to PW.1, the partnership firm was agreed to be dissolved on payment of Rs.65,000/- to the respondent. A sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid by him and Rs.5,000/- was not paid by him to the respondent. When PW.1 failed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as demanded by the respondent, respondent assaulted him with MO.1 and as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries and this has been witnessed by PW.2 -his wife Tara, PW.3 - brother-in-law and PW.6 -Father-in-law and PW.9 - Paramesh, who had taken the complainant to the hospital for treatment.7
On perusal of Ex.P.3 - wound certificate and the evidence of Dr.Manjuprakash- PW.5 discloses that a lacerated wound is found on the head of the victim and it is simple in nature. Even if the injury found on PW.1 is proved, the question is; whether the accused is responsible for causing such an injury and whether the respondent can be connected with the alleged offence. Insofar this point is concerned, when PW.1 was taken to PW.5 - Dr.Manjuprakash, he has not figured the name of the respondent as assailant. What is stated in Ex.P.3 is that the injury was caused by MO.1 by a neighbour. But the respondent is not the neighbour of PW.1. On the contrary, they are partners of a firm and it is not the case of the prosecution that the complainant and the respondent were residing side by side and they were neighbours. It is also the case of the complainant - PW.1 that his wife, brother-in-law and father-in-law have witnessed the incident, when the respondent assaulted him with MO.1. But their names are not figured in Ex.P.1 - first information and even according 8 to these witnesses, they have not witnessed the incident. Therefore, it is difficult for any Court to accept that it is the respondent, who assaulted PW.1 and PW.1 sustained simple injuries due to the assault made by the respondent. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. By looking into the judgment of the Sessions Court, we are of the opinion that the appreciation of the evidence by the Sessions Court is just and reasonable and cannot be perverse. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, IA.1/2013 filed to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is also rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA