Karnataka High Court
Annadorai vs State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT' BANGALORE Dated this the 2"" day of September, 2010 C C Before THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUYADI G" _ _: C' Criminal/lppeal 17314 /2097 C' " Between: C' C' Annadorai S/0 Madaia 36 yrs, Coolie Gopinathapuduru Village V ' KollegaETaIuk _ 2;' 1 Appellant (By Sri Siji Malayil, Adv.) j; ' And: State of Karnatakallivyy y -- . M M Hills P(_)lice_ ' _ V C Respondent (By Sri G Srirlivasa under S374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pray.i1ixg_etoi order of conviction and sentence passed by the '-.,_Addl. Sessions Chamaraj anagar in SC 8/2006 on 29.10.2007. as The Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, Court delivered the 'follC--Wing:i5 W; T9 JUDGMENT
Appeal is by the accused against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chainarajnagai'. 812006 on 29.10.2007 convicting the accused for the cfi'ehce ~- under S.307, [PC and sentencing him to undergo simlpdlle"i'm.pris0nirient,_V if for two years and aiso to pay fine of Rs. 10,0200/Jandl det"au'l't.:s'engteii:ce, two months.
'i'he case of the prosecLition.is,.--..around 8.30 p.m., near the land' sheet sitiiate at"'Gop"inatha Village of Kollegal Taluk, the appeilaynt/accus.ed,iis» .said:to_.have attempted to commit murder of one Madayyan Nellut by means of a chopper by causing :-"'1'.VI.;l'.%l,1}"ieS left sid'e'of-----tiie neck and also on the chest near the shoulder'; accused was charge sheeted for the offence if=._,_punishablelundereS.7§O4, IPC after investigation, on the strength of the complaint tiIed;.by the wife of the injured W PW .4. On the basis of the chafgewsheet filed, the prosecution examined in all, fifteen witnesses and h marked as many as ten exhibits and eight material objects.
"Thereafter, the accused was examined under S.3l3, Cr.PC and since the 2%"
accused did not lead any defense evidence, after having heard the arguments, learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accusednforlithe offence punishable under S307, IPC and sentenced _ imprisonment as noted above. Assailing the said o1'der,..,:appel.la'nt is before this Court.
The argument of the appellantfs _counsel,_i'sr-- that, ,Ve:i:lcept lthelself serving testimony of the complainant, therelllwas noiother 'eye Witness to the incident. The incident has pl.ace,.inl"therdau'l; of the night. Since the accused was an associate/accomplice of "Vee1'appan, he has been falsely implicated in th_--e case. There is no recovery from the accused or at his instance .,and, allw._other_vvi.tnes'ses are hearsay witnesses. The evidence of the wife -of the injured and other witnesses is only hearsay evidencevand injuries caused are simple in nature. In the absence of any 1*-eco.very~a.t:'t.he in'st.ance of the appellant, it is submitted, the accused xvlcould not~._hav__e' 'be§~nl convicted for the offence under S307, IPC much if "having regard to the nature of the injuries i.e., simple injuries, it vvould_V'be...an offence under S324, [PC and the sentence to undergo T simpleiimprisonment for two years is disproportionate to the nature of ll"
4
the injuries sustained by the injured. Accordingly, contending that there is no cogent evidence on record to hold the accused guilty of the offence, learned counsel has sought for acquittal. e ' Per contra, learned government pleader subtnitted 1 V' incident although has taken place in the nigh*t,~the well identify the accused as they are acquaii;ted<_with each' other."
also submitted, the people who arrive;j"~».at the" spot _hj1mée1at'ety'i are be independent persons and they have spo-ken.'Vj_ahout_the ienjuriesvvvsustained by the injured. The injured was$s}1ifted,.t'o:'the'ihospital by the persons who were at the spioti;'_..The¥.wife.of_the injured is the complainant. The accused having ,assau1ted_ itne'~inj'ur_e"ci',"'has thrown the sickle on the spot which is recov,ered,e and it is a "dangerous weapon. Having regard to the n_ature. of' the""ifrijueries sustained viz., injury on the neck and the chest which are ._vitai.parts of the body, the very motive and intention to iiwVeVC()II1II1:il'.i'1'?.'.111I'(l..__<'3.I'. the injured could be very well gathered from the
7.circumsVtances.--*. There is no exaggeration or false implication. The i_nj.ured'l1as sustained serious injuries and he was hospitalised for more thanv-fifteen days. It is also stated, the injured was an informant to the W. police and, the accused, a person belonging to the gang of Veerappan, to finish of the injured, has assaulted on the vital parts of the body.__ The trial court has taken a lenient view in sentencing with imprisonment for only two years. The order of convictionand Asen"te--nc'e----- ~ passed is legally sustainable and no error....as_ suc:h,'liisWcotnmittedg if Accordingly, he resisted the appeal.
In the light of the arguments thel'points_th.at lvioulid arise '' for consideration is -
Whether the trial conarriitted Ei11yw--f:'t'1'0f or illegality in holding that the accused as attenipted murder of the injured Madaiah and thereby heldl'th.eiaccttse_d Aguiltyiiof the offence under S307, IPC? :_vW'~hether..':tfre prose._cutionhas-~p1*oved the case against the accused beyond reasoi;'abile'doubtt the accused guilty of the offence? * V What order?
Athathe the evidence of the injured --- PW 2 is that, he is an irrforrn3.:1t'_to the police against Veerappan gang. Since there was threat AV to his life, although he was a resident of Gopinatha Village, he was kept at Madeshwara Hills as such, he was residing there. The accused is a resident of Kudur, a neighbouring village of Gopinatha Village,Vc~'l7ihe_re was a theft case filed against the accused for the alleged the_f§:of" _ tusk. Even the accused is said to have approached the 'injured, to-ge't_the_ if " "
case closed, filed against him through the'».,help~Qf' R,'ange"VFo_res:i;e_*l Officer. In this regard, the injured 2-'lVs(:.._§:1pproachedV theTRAai1g.e,VVForest Officer to close the case, but, it was not:V"po:ssilqle. ..C)f1.'_l;:fv1.'{'_', dvggte of the incident, to receive a phone call"'i.n7thAe'ifarzfrl Nagaraj Reddy, he went there around 7.30 piin. and-,'as di'd.,r1otlrece,iVe"any phone, while he was returning,acccmpanied him, all of a sudden attacked him witha,chopper..(machhu)'.on the neck, behind the right ear and also bf:loi.a{.the'he-adland on the chest below the shoulder as such, he 1'Vsustainedviibleedinguinjuries. He has deposed, while he was near the land of one '«.iGoipala",-«._:thej'V'incident has taken place and when he cried, xwVii1:3mediate.ly and Gopala came there. As such, the accused if ivfihlaving throwrrthe sickle, ran away. In the attack, he having fell down, anddtried to kick the accused but, he ran away. Although Bupal if -Gopala tried to catch hold of the accused, he escaped. Later, he was W taken to the police station at Gopinatha which is about 100 mtrs"'.and from there, one Tangudorai shifted him to the hospital in a with his wife, Gopala, Govindaraju and others came "~hin:i:an,d he was taken to Mettur Hospital which is 30 kins froth there.' ,t~h,¢'ré.,,,1,:, was expressed that they could not properly treat the injured; he waslater , shifted to Lotus Hospital, Erode. There','o'h§*s.vas an 'inpatient for nearly twenty days. His wife filed a' compla.i'nt witi1.__the"po1ice and the police have come and seized the weapon and.,th.e_:ciothes, l ' Apart from the ct/idence_'of pthe,:i11_iu1fed,_th'e"eyidence of his wife Nalamnia who is tixieivlcvornplain-ant~«and e_:tam_ined as PW 4 is that, she went to the spot.,inini1ediatelyp'liearing' the cries around 8.30 pm. and she has also spoken to aho11_t the injuries sustained by the injured, that he was shifted poiice station at Gopinatha and then to Mettur Hospital and thento the hospitall Erode for treatment.
'i"he'ldefensei._of the accused is that, in the case filed against the lf_:«.,,acct1sed, the vilnjured had demanded Rs.20,000/-- and since he did not make paynient, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. .%/ 8 However, the complainant has denied the version of the accused that her husband has not been assaulted by the accused and that she has fial'seely implicated the accused. Apart from the evidence of PW Bupal also has gone to the spot immediately on hearingtiiepv the "
injured and he has spoken similarly to that oiiopf the injured to the police station and frornthere to_Mettur hospital lforlfirst ~' aid and thereafter, to Erode hospital. 6x -- also a circumstantial witness to speakiabout on the Even PW 7 has also spoken about --which the injured went to the Farm 'while returning from his house, he the accused and he is also a circumstantial.__witnesst..ii Nagaraja Reddy - PW 8 has spoken about the incident' that he heard that injured was assaulted by the :'laccusc1:l.V. PW? who is the brother of Nagaraja Reddy to whose house went awaiting the phone call, has also spoken about the"'--acc1.gsed. well as the injured going to the house of Nagaraj , to receive the phone call and also he has spoken about the accused"ass:aulting the injured in the night at 8.30 p.rn. PW 1,0 is the VP PW 9 J ayararn. She has also spoken about the accused assaulting the injured and that she learnt about the same from Nagaraj PW 8, her brother in law. PW 11 is one D Muthu who has spoken about shifting of the injured to the hospital at Erode and he has also spoken ai3ou't._tne injured having sustained injuries on his neck and chest andatso he 1 ' the injured telling the police about the accused~as;sau1t'in,§vhitnré it it is the pancha for the scene of offence pane«hanama wherein:
spot, they have seized some incriminatifig articles incvIudin'ge'lvi0"j1 ~ "
Chopper. PW 13 is the pancha 'for the---seei}'Zure"-~oAf the ciothe.sv'§frorn the injured i.e., a shirt, lungi and ltnichlterlwliich .vve:re.,:stained with blood. PW 14 is the Medical_Officer:_'vvho'has injured at Lotus Hospital, Erode. _l€le7h«a.s_cieposed'~about the injuries on the injured i.e., Iacerated woun'd__o'ver the on the shoulder 3 X 2 ems skin deep injuryand, one m_or'e"inju'ry near the nape of the neck on the right side 39, cfns o_n~r_ight side, exposing mandible and cervical vertebra. The of the spinous process of C2. The above lev_idence"on recordeshows that, apart from the evidence of the injured, be H " ofthe other witnesses i.e., PWs 8 & 9 have also spoken about the prese'nVce"ofi the accused in the house of Nagaraj Reddy and the motive W for' the commission of the offence is also made out wherein this accused ID was pressing the injured to help him get out of the theft case in regard to which, stating he has not helped and also that the injured is an infornéant to the police against Veerappan Gang, this accused is said.'.te.__'_ha'v,.g"
assaulted with a chopper. Almost all witnesses who"
witnesses, apart from the wife of the injured and t_;het_injured"hiniself, f have spoken about the injured sustaining.injuriesdue to the chopper ~»~ one simple and another injurv; part of the body, as per the medical he admitted in Lotus hospital at Erodeand hewas --more than fifteen days. Of course, éuggestions wer:efrnade"ito the witnesses on behalf of false case but, the veracity of the evidenc'e__off the and some other persons who arrived at it the _ spot immediately on hearing the cries, points out to Zitowiardsjthei ofthe accused. The medicai evidence, seizure of M0. 1 on"the.i'spot"'andjjii_ti1e"VV'hiood stained clothes on the injured also fortifies the case or thej_'prosecution. The defense version that the injured himself 'ihasrjsustained injuries due to fall in a drunken state cannot be taken into 'V con_sid.eration in view of the injuries sustained by him and also in View of V .i V V T the' medical evidence.
1] So far as motive is concerned, though it is pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the injured has sustained only simple injuries, but the injury found on the left side of the chest and also on the neck appears to have been inflicted to finish of the if ire that the injured is an informant to the police' against V_eerapp:in'gan§--~' and also this injured did not help the accusedto freed. theft case of elephant's tusk. The tiialcourt having iighi_lyxt:oVns'idered the evidence on record, has properly appreci.ated"'the sarrie"arid held the accused guilty of the offence.
Even convicflngy and sent~encing the accused, a liberal view has been taken by 'the"trialcourt '-inisenitciicing the accused to suffer simple imprisonment only for Atvvo'1yea3's and to pay fine. The order of the trial court does notfcalllhlfor interference.
if V2-'ippeal.isdisriiissed. it is for the trial court to secure the accused "Vito serve the re_rnaining part of the sentence and also the default sentence ~ .the event, the fine amount is not paid. Further, the accused is entitled ll"
£2 for the benefit of set of as per S/128, Cr.}?C for the period of deteiifién undergone duping inquiry and trial.
An