Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohana vs The State By on 15 May, 2018
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.216/2013
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1013/2013
IN CRL.A.NO.216/2013
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Mohana
S/o Venkappa Naika,
Aged about 25 years,
2. Mr. Vishwanath
S/o Venkappa Naika,
Aged about 30 years,
3. Mr. Konappa @ Kusalappa
S/o Venkappa Naika,
Aged about 25 years. ... APPELLANTS
All are residing at
Mundra Bailu House,
Idkadu Village and Post,
Puttur Taluk
Dakshina Kannada.
(By Sri.P.D.Subrahmanya, learned Amicus-Curiae)
AND:
The State by
The Police Inspector,
Puttur Town Police Station,
Reptd by SPP, High Court Building,
2 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
High Court,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, learned HCGP,) IN CRL.A.NO.1013/2013 BETWEEN:
Mr. Krishnappa Naika S/o Late Annu Naika, Aged about 41 years, R/at Kodenchara Moole House, Kodipady Village & Post, Puttur Taluk, Mangalore, D.K - 574201 ... APPELLANT (By Sri.P.D.Subrahmanya, learned Amicus-Curiae) AND:
State of Karnataka, Through Puttur Town police, Puttur, D.K. Dist-
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, learned HCGP,) These Criminal Appeals are filed under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Puttur, D.K, in S.C.No.42/2010 etc., These Criminal Appeals coming on for final hearing this day, K.S.MUDAGAL, J., delivered the following : 3 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
COMMON JUDGEMENT These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada in Sessions Case No.42/2010. Therefore, they are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
2. The appellants in Crl.A.No.216/2013 are accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 in S.C.No.42/2010. The appellant in Crl.A.No.1013/2013 is accused No.1 in S.C.No.42/2010.
3. Since the counsel representing the appellants in Crl.A.No.216/2013 did not turn up to represent them, Sri. P.D.Subrahmanya is appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent them and to assist the court in the matter.
4. Heard both the sides.
5. For the purpose of convenience, the appellants will be referred to with their ranks before the 4 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 trial Court. Accused No.1 is the younger brother of PW.1 Umanatha Naika, PW.3 is the wife of PW.1. Accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 are the sons of junior uncle of PW.1 and accused No.1. Accused No.4 is the person known to PW.1 as well as accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6. There were disputes between accused No.1 and PW.1 with regard to the succession to the properties of their father. Therefore, there was ill-will between the parties.
6. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 08.10.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., when PW.1 and 3 were sitting in front of their house situated in their farm house within the limits of Kodanachara Moole of Kodipady Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, accused Nos.1 to 6 armed with M.O.1 to 5 namely, splinter, kokke kathi (bill hook) and Talwar with an intention to commit murder of PW.1 rushed towards PW.1 and 2. On seeing the accused and smelling the danger, PW.1 and 3 rushed into their house and closed the door. Accused Nos.1 to 6 broke open the door of the house, trespassed into the house 5 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 and assaulted PW.1 brutally. When PW.3 went to his rescue, they assaulted her also. PW.1 and 3 to save themselves ran to the adjacent land and fell on the ground due to the injuries. The accused thinking that PW.1 and 3 have died left the spot. While so leaving accused Nos.3 and 4 dropped their weapons on the spot and rest of the accused carried the weapons with themselves.
PW.2 learnt about the incident through her daughter-PW.6. Then both of them rushed to the spot and found injured victims. The injured were shifted to Srinivasa Nursing Home, Puttur. PW.7 was working there as Medical Officer. He examined them and treated them. On learning about the incident, PW.11, the PSI of Puttur Town Police station visited the hospital and recorded Ex.P.2-the statement of PW.3. On the basis of Ex.P.2, he registered the FIR-Ex.P.12 and handed over further investigation to PW.12-Police Inspector of Puttur Police Station. PW.12 conducted the further investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 6 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
7. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 of I.P.C. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court on hearing the accused, framed charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 of I.P.C. and recorded the plea of the accused. They denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, the trial was conducted.
8. In support of the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.12 were examined. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and M.O.1 to M.O.10 were marked. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating evidence. The accused did not lead any evidence. However, they got marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.1(a) by way of confrontation.
9. The trial Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment acquitted accused Nos.2 and 4 7 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 of all the charges and accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 r/w 149 of I.P.C. However, convicted accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 for various offences and sentenced them as follows:-
Sl. Accused Conviction Sentence No. 1. Accused no.1 - Sections 452, Section 307 - Life
Sri.Krishnappa 307 r/w 34 of Imprisonment and fine of Naika I.P.C Rs.10,000/- and in default S.I for a period of one year.
Section 452 - R.I for 2
years and fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default
S.I for a period of 3
months.
2 Accused no.3 - Sections 452, Section 452 - R.I for 2
Sri.Mohana and 326 r/w 34 of years and fine of
Accused No.6 - I.P.C Rs.1000/- and in default
Sri. Konappa @ S.I for a period of 3
Kushalappa months.
Section 326 - R.I. for 2
years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default
S.I for a period of 6
months.
3 Accused no.5 - Sections 452, Section 452 - R.I for 2
Sri. Viswanath 324 r/w 34 of years and fine of
I.P.C Rs.1000/- and in default
S.I for a period of 3
months.
Section 324 - R.I. for 1
year and fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default
S.I. for a period of 3
months.
8 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
10. The trial Court records the conviction on the following material:-
(i) Circumstantial evidence of motive;
(ii) The evidence of injured eye-witnesses PW.1 and PW.3;
(iii) The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW.7 and the forensic science evidence of PW.5;
(iv) The circumstance of recovery of M.O.1 and 2 under mahazar-Ex.P.2;
(v) The spot mahazar-Ex.P.2 and the evidence of witnesses to the said mahazar;
and
(vi) The evidence of police witnesses PW.11 and 12.
11. So far as the acquittal, the trial Court says that the names of accused Nos.2 and 4 do not find place at the first instance in FIR as well as the medical records and they are implicated due to ill-will between the parties.
9 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
12. Sri. P.D.Subrahmanya, the learned Amicus Curiae reiterating the grounds in both the appeals seeks to assail the impugned order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:-
(i) The motive is a double edged weapon.
The accused are implicated in the case due to ill- will between the parties with regard to property dispute.
(ii) The case of the prosecution is that the injuries found in Ex.P.8 and 9 were inflicted by the talwars-M.O.4 and 5, but the recovery of M.O.3 to M.O.5 is not proved. The said injuries could not have been caused by M.O.1 and 2. The seizure of M.O.3 to M.O.5 and 10 is not proved.
(iii) PW.1 and 3 are the interested witnesses as they have ill-will against the accused.
iv) PW.7, the Doctor is an interested person, since he was known to PW.1. Therefore, he has exaggerated the things.
10 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
(v) PW.2 and 6, who are none else but the sister and niece of PW.1 do not support the prosecution version of assault by the accused.
(vi) If the accused intended to kill PW.1 and 3 they should not have left PW.1 and 3. There is an exaggeration on the part of the prosecution in filing the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.
(vii) The blood stains on the weapons are not proved by collecting the blood samples and grouping them.
(viii) The trial Court though convicted the appellants invoking Section 307 and Section 34 of I.P.C, sentenced appellant no.1 alone for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C, which is erroneous.
(ix) Having regard to the fact that though the accused were allegedly large in number and were armed with weapons but still spared PW.1 and 3, the sentence imposed on the appellants is disproportionate.
11 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
13. Per contra, Sri Chetan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to justify the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds:
(i) The evidence on record sufficiently shows that there was ill-will between PW.1 and the accused and previously on the complaint of PW.1, accused No.1 was convicted. Thus, there is a strong circumstance of motive.
(ii) PW.1 and 3 more particularly PW.3 suffered serious injuries in the hands of the accused. If the culprit was somebody else, there is no reason for them to shield such persons and falsely implicate the accused.
(iii) The evidence of PW.1 and 3 that they had fallen in the adjacent land with grievous injuries is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and 6.
Further, the evidence of shifting PW.1 and 3 to Srinivasa Nursing Home is also corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, 6 and 7.
(iv) The evidence of injured PW.1 and 3 is corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer - 12 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 PW.7. Merely because PW.1 and 3 used to visit Srinivasa Nursing Home, PW.7 cannot be branded as interested witness.
(v) There is recovery of blood stained clothes of the victims and the weapons. Ex.P.5 - the FSL report and Ex.P.6 - Serology Report and evidence of PW.5 show that those MOs were stained with human blood.
(vi) The spot mahazar-Ex.P.3 shows that there was dent on the door of the house.
(vii) There is no reason to disbelieve the official witnesses (Police witnesses) PWs.11 and 12.
(viii) The evidence of all the witnesses is cogent and consistent to point the guilt of the accused.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is :-
1. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 452, 307, 326 and 324 read with 34 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt and whether the impugned 13 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 order of conviction and sentence warrants interference of this Court?
15. So far as the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 4 and not sentencing the accused invoking section 34 of I.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C, the State has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the order of acquittal as against the State has attained finality.
16. The case of the prosecution depends upon
(i) The circumstance of motive;
(ii) The evidence of injured witnesses-PW.1 and PW.3;
(iii) The evidence of eye witnesses - PW.2 and PW.6;
(iv) The medical evidence i.e., evidence of PW.7 and wound certificates-Ex.P.8 and 9, intimation-Ex.P.7.
(v) Forensic evidence, namely, FSL report-Ex.P.5, Serology Report-Ex.P.6 and the evidence of PW.5-In- charge Scientific Officer.
(vi) The circumstance of recovery of M.O.1 and 2 under the spot mahazar-Ex.P.3.
14 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
(vii) The circumstance of recovery of weapons-M.O.3 to 5 and 10;
(viii) The circumstance of recovery of M.O.7 to 9 under the seizure mahazar-Ex.P.4.
REGARDING MOTIVE :-
17. The accused/appellants did not dispute the relationship inter se themselves and PW.1 to 3 and 6.
They also did not dispute that father of accused No.1, PW.1 and PW.2 owns certain properties and the father's properties are in the hands of accused No.1. PW.1 and 3, both in their evidence have stated that there was dispute between PW.1 and accused No.1 regarding the said properties. PW.1, in his deposition states that about 10 years back, he had filed a complaint against the first accused stating that accused No.1 along with 11 others assaulted him and in that case, the first accused was convicted. In the cross-examination, the said evidence is not controverted.
18. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused themselves suggest that PW.1 did not invite 15 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 accused Nos.1 and 2 and other family members for his marriage with PW.3. His statement that first accused did not invite PW.1 for his marriage is also not disputed. The accused themselves suggest that, PW.1 did not invite accused No.1 to his marriage with a vengeance that accused No.1 being younger brother is getting married earlier to him. Therefore, material on record sufficiently shows that the motive circumstance set up by the prosecution is proved and therefore, the trial Court has rightly accepted that evidence. REGARDING INJURIES:
19. PW.1 and 3 and PW.7, the Doctor, in their evidence speak about the injuries suffered by PW.1 and
3. In the complaint-Ex.P.2 itself, PW.3 has stated that accused No.1 assaulted PW.3 on his head, right shoulder, right knee, back, both the hands and caused injuries. She has further stated in Ex.P.1 that when she went to the rescue of PW.1, the accused assaulted on her head, right hand, right middle finger, index finger and thumb.
16 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
20. PW.7 states that when he examined PW.1 and 3 he found the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.8 and 9- the wound certificates. According to him, PW.1 had suffered injury Nos.1 to 16 mentioned in Ex.P8 and PW.3 had suffered injury Nos.1 to 4 mentioned in Ex.P9.
21. PW.2 the sister of both accused No.1 and PW.1, PW.6 the daughter of PW.2 in their evidence state that when they came to the spot, they learnt that PW.1 and 3 were seriously injured and they were shifted to Srinivasa Nursing Home and PW.6 accompanied them.
22. The accused did not cross-examine PW.2 and 6 to deny the evidence that PW.1 and 3 have suffered injuries as stated by them. Even in the cross- examination of PW.1 and 3, the injuries spoken by them are not disputed and it is only suggested that PW.1 suffered those injuries due to accidental fall from areca nut tree and when PW.3 intervened, she also suffered injuries.
17 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
23. Having stated so in the cross-examination of PW.1 and 3, the accused made attempt to suggest to PW.7 that PW.1 and 3 had not suffered such injuries at all, which he denies. At another breath, they suggest to PW.7 that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 are accidental injuries, which is self contradictory.
24. Having regard to the evidence of PW.1 and 3 and 6, the trial Court has rightly accepted the evidence of PW.7 and Ex.P.8 and 9, regarding injuries. REGARDING CHARGES:
25. The above discussion goes to show that PW.1 and 3 had suffered injuries and there was ill-will between the appellants and PW.1, which had resulted in conviction of accused No.1 previously in another case. Under such circumstance, the Court has to see whether the prosecution has proved that the injuries found in Ex.P.8 and 9 were inflicted by the appellants as alleged by the prosecution and the case of trespass is proved. PW.1 and 3, the injured witnesses state that when both of them were sitting in front of their house, accused 18 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 accosted them with talwars and splinters (Salake) and smelling the danger, both of them rushed into their house and locked themselves from inside.
26. They further stated that the accused broke open the door, trespassed into the house and assaulted them. So far as the trespass is concerned, the spot mahazar-Ex.P.3 states that there were blood stains on the pail of the house and M.O.1 and 2 were lying at the spot. It further states that there were traces of breaking open the eastern door and the bolt of the door was found broken. Ex.P.3 further states that the broken piece of the bolt was not found at the spot.
27. To prove Ex.P.3, the prosecution examined PW.4 and PW.10. It is stated that PW.3 showed the spot to the investigating officer and the mahazar Ex.P.3 was drawn on 08.10.2008 between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m in the presence of PW.4 and 10. Spot mahazar was drawn by PW.11. PW.4 in his evidence states that on learning about the incident, he visited the hospital and from there police took him to the house of PW.1 and 3. He 19 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 further states that at the spot there were blood stains in the front room, police collected the sample of those blood stains, M.O.1 and 2, which were lying there and drew mahazar Ex.P.3 and took his signature on the same.
28. Though in the cross-examination, he states that he does not know whether M.O.1 and 2 were lying and who picked them up, there is no denial of his evidence that there was a dent on the door. PW.10 also states that when he visited the hospital on learning about the incident, police took them to the house of PW.1 and conducted mahazar under Ex.P.3. He states that blood stains were found in the areca nut farm, M.O.1 and 2 were lying at the spot and the eastern door of the house was broken. Even in his cross- examination, there is no denial of the breaking of the door.
29. It is contended that these two witnesses are blood relatives and therefore, their evidence shall not be believed. PW.4 is the son of the aunt of PW.1 and 20 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 accused No.1. Nothing is elicited in his evidence to show that he has any bias against the accused or favour for PW.1. Though PW.10 is related to PW.3 i.e., wife of PW.1, it is not shown in his cross-examination he gets any benefit, if accused are convicted.
30. The spot mahazar is drawn in short succession of the incident. There was no scope for any manipulation. In the absence of anything to demonstrate that PW.4 and 10 had any animosity against the accused, their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are blood relatives.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganapathi and another v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1635, in this regard has held as follows:-
"13. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a 21 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 case cannot be said to be 'interested' [See: State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752: (AIR 1981 SC 1390)].
14. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made [See : Maranadu and Anr. v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 534)]".
32. As already pointed out, the accused in the cross-examination of PW.4 and 10 has failed to demonstrate that they are the interested witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4, PW.10 and Ex.P.2 coupled with evidence of PW.3 and 11 shows that there 22 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 was breaking of the door of the house, which leads to the conclusion that accused trespassed into the house.
33. As already pointed out, PW.1 and 3 speak to the injuries suffered by them. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 and 6 that immediately after the incident, they were taken to the hospital with injuries. The evidence of PW.7 shows that he examined them. As already discussed, the accused did not dispute the injuries. Merely because PW.1 and 3 were visiting the hospital where PW.7 was working, his evidence cannot be labelled as evidence of interested witness, more so, when it is not elicited that PW.7 is the owner of the hospital.
34. It is quite natural that a patient or client of a professional keeps visiting him whenever they have problem. Only on the ground of such previous visits of the patient, the Medical Practitioner cannot be called as an interested witness, more so, when it is not shown how issuing such certificates confers any benefit on PW.7.
23 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
35. Evidence of PW.7, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 show that PW.1 and 3 were examined at the hospital on 08.10.2008 at about 12.15 p.m. The incident has taken place on the same day at 10.00 a.m. Therefore, it goes to show that immediately after the incident, they were brought to the hospital. Even as per the evidence of PW.2 and 6, immediately after the incident they have revealed the history before the Doctor as assault by accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 with talwars and clubs. During that short span of time, there was no scope for manipulation or improvement.
36. It is the settled position of law that injured witnesses stand on a higher pedestal as they themselves are the victims and their evidence shall be given due credence unless it is shown that there was any reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. In this case, the property dispute between the accused and PW.1 was going on since many years prior to the incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that implicating the accused in the case in any way secures them the properties immediately.
24 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
37. Having regard to the gravity of the injuries inflicted on PW.1, it becomes hard to accept that he spares the culprits, if they were somebody else and falsely implicates the appellants. As rightly held by the trial Court, the evidence of PW.1 and 3 is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.7. Therefore, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the injuries were inflicted by the appellants with weapons as stated by PW.1 and 3 before the Doctor and before the Court.
38. So far as the contention that the recovery of M.O.3 to 5 and 10 is not proved and M.O.1 and 2 could not have caused injuries mentioned in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9, it is true that the original recovery mahazar pertaining to M.O.3 to 5 and 10 is not produced and therefore, the trial Court has not accepted the evidence of recovery of these material objects. However, when there is credible evidence of injured eye witnesses i.e. PW.1 and 3, failure to prove the circumstance of recovery of M.O.3 to 5 and 10 becomes insignificant, more so, when the victims revealed the weapons before the Doctor within a short span of time. 25 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013
39. Ex.P.4- the mahazar regarding the recovery of the blood stained clothes of PW.1 and 3, coupled with evidence of PW.3, 4 and 10 show that PW.11 recovered the same during his visit to the hospital. The evidence of PW.11 and PW.5 shows that the said clothes were sent for chemical-examination to the FSL. The evidence of PW.5 and Ex.P.5 show that scrapings of blood stains, two wooden clubs, one chaddi, one nightie, one langa, two kathies, two talwars were sent for chemical- examination as they were all stained with blood.
40. It is true that the samples of the blood of the victims are not taken and blood grouping and matching of the blood groups is not done. However, there is nothing to demonstrate that the investigating officer planted all such material objects and sent them to the chemical-examination. PW.1 and PW.3 have identified their clothes and M.O.1 to M.O.10.
41. So far as the contention that sentence imposed is disproportionate, it is to be noted that the accused entered into the house of the victims with 26 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 deadly weapons, they assaulted PW.1 and 3, who were unarmed. Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9, more particularly, Ex.P.8 shows that PW.1 was assaulted brutally with deadly weapons. Having regard to the manner of the assault, the weapons used and the vital parts of the body on which the injuries were inflicted and number of injuries and the multiple fractures, we are not persuaded to accept that accused No.1 had no intention to attempt on the life of PW.1. Therefore, the contention that the conviction of accused No.1 should be brought to section 326 of IPC from Section 307 of IPC is rejected.
42. Having regard to the evidence on record that previous to the incident also accused No.1 was convicted on the complaint of PW.1 of assaulting him, there are no grounds to reduce the sentence.
43. The appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is sound and sustainable. The evidence adduced in proof of the charges for which the accused are convicted is cogent and consistent. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of 27 Crl.A.Nos.216/2013 c/w 1013/2013 conviction and sentence. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.
44. We appreciate the effective assistance rendered by Sri.P.D.Subrahmanya, learned Amicus Curiae. The Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as honorarium to learned Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PYR/RB