Karnataka High Court
State By Aldur Police vs Sri Narayana Poojari S/O Late Sema ... on 30 September, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, __
PRESENT
THE HONTSLE MR. JUSTICE
AND _ é
THE HONBLE MR. J:;ST1cE*-B.\z'. mrél~¢>.:%a
CRL.A. NO. :1S§"-or-2006"
BETWEEN:-- 'V '
State byAldur Police.
' Appellant
{By Sri p.M.Na,w@:,a.lAdq1;¢Sré_P} "
1. stalteamana f'i§o3af:A;f_' _
S/_o. later Sefna'Pooj-ari;
Aged about 49 "
WI1t€f.4 Y »-
2. ,S:=~: Raghu"; A. S H V'
- {By Sri Radhakrishna, Advocate}
'S/go, Narayanav}-3-oojari,
" . V Aged about 23 years,
-- "Both Krishnappa Extension,
».._Har1.-d1, Cjhlckmagalur Taluk.
' V Respondents
V' 'This Crl.A. is filed U/S.378{1) & {3} of Cr.P.C. by the
.'_j'.StaVte PP. for the State praying that this Hon'ble Court may
" be Fpleased to grant leave to file an appeal against the
judgment dated 23.12.2005 passed by the 13.0., _E'__'}."C--l,
Chikmagalur in S.C.No.6'7 / 2002 acquitting7,__ Vthe
respondents/ accused for the offences punishable
30'? and 324 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC. The Appellant/State
that the above order may be set aside.
This appeal coming for hearing...on_ this I it it
delivered the following: I H p
J------s--~U D
This appeal is filed by order
of acquittal passed in the"file' of Fast
Track Court - I, 23.12.05
acquitting the 22:" "of the offences
U/Ss.504, of IPC. The case of the
prosecution 6.00 p.m. in Kelahandi,
the acc:_ise*d' CW3 in filthy language and
attempted ltoauassahltléwthemfiay means of cycle chain in order
to their _thereby they are alleged to have
vcommittved..offe';1ce U/s.504 and 307 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC. It is
the accused that on the above said time,
_ date""and._'.place Accused No.1 assaulted CW1 by means of
battery and caused simple injuries thereby they are alleged
committed offence U/s.324 r/W. Sec.34 of IPC.
2. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has
examined in all 9 witnesses and got marked EX.P1
and produced M.O.1 to M.O.4.
3. The defence of the
had been assaulted by the witnesses"-and vhave':
marked EXs.D1 to D3 and haveadeniedh the levelled
against them. The learned Ses~sions';dii'dge after°hearing the
prosecution and the defence: respondents
of the charges l.eirel.1_ed the State has
filed this apt;-:=;'¢%;i_;.._V fie.» .
zit if stated that on the date of the
incidenthe had 'gonev'toVH_osp'et for bringing an axe, at that
time near the"h_ous.e"of the Accused No.1 stopped their
«-.motor¥'cyclce and CW2 and himself and asked them
§trl13:r_ti1ey'v«harecteased his daughter and thereafter they also
that time, the Accused No.2 came nearby
_ 'and questioned as to why they are quarrelling with his father
A that he will cause their murder. The Accused No.2
'"2___"'l'."assaulted PW1 by means of a sickle. He lost his
consciousness. The Accused No.1 assaulted CWl_._ with
Fhreready Battery. Thereafter Accused No.2 assaultedj"..(§VV2
twice by means of sickle. CW1 and CW2 thereafter'. .
to Mudigere Hospital and since _th.e__Hosgiitaliifiuthorities it"
refused to take them as inpatient ;y't11cyd"wderel"
Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore-'.: He hasstated aj'ai;;d.uV¢Ht_§
assault, he has sustained injury: headianjd also on the
backside of the head. that he was
inpatient in Wenlock Police have
recorded 'assaulted on the head,
he has neck and he was
discharged _suvslcr,t§ested to him in the cross-
examinatioii V that'.v="of Accused No.2 by name
Yashodha1nlfi1a:Vwa.s alsolhinjured at the same time and that
'--v.Athey.l€'W1e'r.e also assaulted by the witnesses and there is a
counterhcaseA.iri;respect of the said incident in which three
pler__sonsV_of accused side have been assaulted. This fact
has beendenied by Pwl.
V H 5. PW2 -- Dr. Vijay Kumar is the Medical Officer in
the General Hospital, Mysore. He has stated that he has
it
/2'.
issued wound certificate by examining CW1 and has opined
that CW1 (PW6) has sustained simple injuriesfiltieffias
further stated that on the same day he has further V'
CW2 -- Parainesha and he has also .s11stain'ed'3'~i.njunes_ on V
his person. He has issued wound certifi'cat'e in..re'spect
said injuries.
6. PWS -- Dr. Josh'ua_jigl Medicai"(l:)fficer in
Wenlock Hospital, Manlgaloretl that he has
examined CW1_ jjatllfalhout 12.40 p.m.
and he hasi-stateVd~~:t;th_jat sutured wound on the
head wa.g.extending from the right
eyebroxtfiand svstollen, the right eyelid had
become taken. From the X--ray it was
founjdfrlthat 1'ightv..sideA,bone of the skull was fractured.
patient was subjected to CT Scan and it was
fbiirid VthVatll'the1'eR3vas scratch injuries on the head and Water
_ was the-ollectedllinside the skull. He has stated that injured
in the'. hospital for treatment and he has issued Wound
, certificate as per EX.P.2 in respect of the injuries sustained
b.yflPW6. He has stated that injury mentioned in EX.P2 is
X'
/gt
grievous in nature. He has further stated that he has
examined CW2 also and issued Ex.P3 ---- wound certificate in
respect of CW2.
7. PW4 «-» Diiip Kumar is a witness to Ex.P.4gia5thich
is a spot mahazar under which the b10odstaine;d"1n1;_1v--d.: _
been seized by the poiice.
8. PW5 - Sundar is a x};r:ttnt%Ajsistoii'*23§':..P:,5..
which the police have seized . and torch "and 1' 1
M.O.2 from the Accused No1,_...I't}:I.'vO.'1.._Vwas' 'secured at the
instance of Accused No';--}:tA'{from and M.O.2 was
recovered froin7.1;hea housecf __Ac_c1_: sed No.1.
9. "'*e}?VV(3 is the injured in this case. He
has thatnion itheédate of the incident on 11.12.2001 at
in pint. the accused were quarrelling with CW2 and
house of CW4. He has stopped his bike
and"""wen.t.to"'V'see as to What is happening. At that time,
L.}\ec1i'sedVV'i\.1o.1 assaulted him with battery, which has been
a._'identii'ied as M.O.2. Accused No.2 assaulted him twice by
-means of sickie --~ M.O.1. CW2 went to extricate them.
Accused No.2 again assaulted them twice, later on Accused
No.2 attempted to assault on him and he has escaped from
the assault of Accused No.2. Thereafter, they were taken to
Hospital. He has stated in the evidence that Accused"--.l$io.2
assaulted with an intention to commit his murder.
identified the complaint given to the police as H
is suggested in his cross--examinati-on' that therejiwas a'-fight'
between the accused as well as the
NO.2 and his mother were also"~Vi.r1jured.__at the i'
said offence which has been den.ied"t.his witnvessgi
10. PW? -- Umesh have turned
hostilellto the easefjefjth,e4Vpro'se'cution.
_.11. Rétvmifasad is the PSI of Aldur Police
%w.ho= has registered a complaint as per E.x.P.7 in
received from PW6 and transmitted the
F' the Later on he visited the scene of occurrence,
'gpdraw thespot mahazar, recovered MO.s3 and 4 and recorded
.,.lj""t'1'1_ei"s_i;atement of CW4 to 6 and subsequently conducted
investigation after recovering M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of
Accused Nos.1 and 2 and filed charge sheet in this case.
12. it is elicited in the cross--examination of this
witness that he has registered a counter case in respeceof
this incident in Crime No.206/2001 against CM;/'s"1 _
one Dinesh on the complaint of the Accused. «from
the evidence of these witnesses, the learnedlsessionswJudge.'
has found that the evidence adduced the pf:.s¢:ciit15;n this
not believable and that he has llaojquitted the llrrespolndents of
the charge levelled against i'%l?l'l€\'.v"Sfiat€ hasuviiled this
appeal.
155; V 'Hea1*clSri learned Addl. SPP and Sri
A.N. Radhalrrishna,hileaineld counsel for the respondents. The
*--v1ea1-njed :_A,SPP submits' that in this case the evidence of the
particularly the evidence of PW6 who is the
injtired with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. clearly
li._indicatethat the accused have committed offence of assault
A Evidence of the doctor of Weniock Hospital and PW6
' indicates that there is grievous injury on the head of PW6
A
///7
therefore, he submits that the offence U/s.307 r/w. Sec.34
IPC is ciearly made out.
14. Sri AN. Radhakrsihna, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that it is clear from the
PW9 ---- the PSI and other witnesses i.e., PW2 and.':injured'
a counter case has been filed against the xfiritnesises in--[thix's--.&
case and he has filed an applicaltionfifl}}s.i39i'
requesting the Court to considefthe F in 'case °
which was numbered as Cr,l\i.o:7'2O{5',/3200.1"and Vgraiso the
judgment passed in thefsaid. --_s,C.No.22/2005
against .41;'1'1~..'_'th1_s -case, wherein the learned
Sessionsvdudge PW6 for the offence U/s.323
and 326 of and sentenced them. Hence, in View of the
'xi"--.factir..\the---e..accusedfwere also injured in this case, the
gprose-::ution.case*..cannot be believed, hence he submits that
the afipealg dismissed.
it 215. On perusal of the application U/s.391 of Cr.P.C.
' itgis seen that the witnesses have admitted the injuries on
10
the accused persons and they have deposed before the Court
also. Under the circumstances the application U/s.391 of
Cr.P.C. is allowed. Apart from that, Exs.Dl to D3 also
indicate that Yashodamma who is the wife of Accused-No.1
and mother of Accused No.2 was also injured in
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion l
parties have indulged in criminal act"'of'~a sss__ult_ing'-w_ith'eachg
other and hence, in View of the conviction i'n._tl*ie cou_n~ter'u_
case, we hold that the acculsediare also guilty lloifllvcaujsing ll
injury on the head and the p.res:ence~..pAand pamicipation of
Accused No.1 and 2 .llis{:_alLso_jproved beyond
reasonable dloubt. view. of the registration and conviction
in the counter case [and '~lj1avi;i1g regard to the peculiar facts
and circums'ta.rices..'--ofAthe."'case, we hold that Accused No.1
V' .andb:.§'ar_e. guilty of causing injuries to the witnesses PWI and
that they are liable for conviction for the
olllcnlce puinigaabie U/s.334 and 335 r/W. Sec.34 of IPC.
lx__Accord~ing;ly, the following
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. Accused Accused No.2 are convicted of the offences "
335 r/W. sec.34 of 190 for caus1n_g....sn:;p1e--'i::5''u§%§,.sV''to'_'_pw=5 '"
and grievous injuries to PW}. reAspective1y7.and"
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs-- each and V/peach 2 L' for each of the offences U/3.35 of IPC respectively. I d. 3 A The accusfiid fine amount before the from today faiiing which, the ekecute the sentence as herein before 'mentioned,' ' _ ' * Sd/-3 Judge' Sd/-3 Judge . GpS* z ..