Karnataka High Court
Muddarangaiah vs State By Koratagere Police on 20 October, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
----1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 20?" DAY OF ocTo.eji:R' 1o 3
Beeoiftel ' l V' V V
THE HONBLE MR,qUs4Tic'E--N.Am1§:jA" V '
CRIMINAL No. 1023'/Qd04'V.':V:E
BETWEEN:
Sri.Muddarangaiah p . --p }
S/o Thippanna, age : 22 "Yeats 1
R/at Govvragan«ahal1ig"' "
Koratagere _
Tumkur D_istric:'§." ~. j« _ i; ' ...APPELLANT
{By Sri.K.V,.N;e_1?a_sirt1hari;"i'§,d'i§eate)
State"-by' i_{ora_tage're Police
Koratag.ere.Town V' '
Tumkur Distrf.Ct.'._ it ...RESPONDENT
{_f ayaliurnarlvlajage, I-lCGP]
'i'hi's._appea1 is filed under section 3'?4[2) Cr.P.C against the
jtidgrnerit"dated..30.06.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer. Fast
~. Tra,cklCoi.1__rt>1V at Turnktlr in S.C.No.167/2000, convicting the
appellant/'accused for offences punishable under sections 448 and
307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R1. for 5 Years and pay a
fine «of 'Rs.20,0()()/-, in default to undergo S1. for one year for an
x offence punishable under section 307 IPC and further sentencing
to undergo 8.1. for 6 months and pay 3. fine of RS500/--, in
" default to undergo SI. for 15 days for an offence punishable under
section 448 IPC 85 etc.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:
'.2
JUDGMENT
The appeiiant arrayed as accused (hereina-fter. to as accused] in S.C.N0.167/2000, on the Court N0.IV at Tumkur was trier}; 1"0;'e_offe;_1ees it punishable under sections 8: 43Q'17*IPC. Th§.ere'f0:rev,"*hewhasL filed this appeal.
2. I have heard Iea.rheeiVV counsel for appellant/accused and Majage, learned HCGP for resp:)ut*Zent:[State':
3. v:'v--.In"bri<'ifv; fla1:'€.o:(V3'ctS4$§'ofprosecution is as follows:--
The'accuses?an{i:_"\.'prosecuti0n witnesses namely PW} to Hate natiires tovigowraganahally village, Koratagere Taluk. » :'PW2eGow'ra1nrna is the mother of PW4--Rajanna. PW6- . 'ti;.im'i:r5=i;1;a~i§;is'V"the Wife of PW4. PW1--Ramakka is a relative of LSW2. i ' hit is the case of prosecution that during intervening of 25/26.02.2000 at about 12 midnight, accused trespassed into the house of PW2 and attempted to outrage .-3 the modesty of PW6. PW6 raised hue and cry._ and switched on light and saw the accused, uaccusedx ran away from that place. On ' PW2 was cleaning rice in the yerandah' of herholiise, aiccliisedcp came there and informed to previous night to any acciisedv for Visiting her house again. At enraged and tied an electric strangled her} If by alleged of PW2, he would have been under section 302 IPC and an offence punishable under section shifted to General Hospital at Koratagere. PW'}v.._1odvged first information with Koratagere ' ;Po1ice,_vlPWlG~Arifu1la registered the case, visited place of seized electric wire. PW2 was treated by PW9fEr.Mndduknshna in General Hospital at Korategere.
"Tine iriizestigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses. completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed it " "against accused for aforestated offences.
4. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, it were examined and documents as per Ex.P.1'A.l:to marked so also a material l
5. The learned trial Judge o'}:._'eppA}ec1eaee~ .015 and after hearing learned forv..pafiir3$ guilty of offences punishable'under~_sections..44:8 and 307 IPC and convicted The learned trial Judge" //undergo rigorous and pay a fine of sentence of simple imprisonment for a 'period of ' for an offence punishable under section 3l(.)'7..,lhIPCl; fhelearned trial Judge sentenced the g acc'ué:-'e:'1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six a fine of RS.500/- with default sentence of simple .imprisonment for a period of 15 days for an offence punisliable under section 448 1pc.
if a In View of the above findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, the following points would arise for determination:- mi. (73 'x.._».tC2:.-- _ 5 _ (1) Whether the prosecution has proved_4vth'at_d'~s.v on 26.02.2000 at about 4.30 p.m., acetised trespassed into the house Gowrarnma at Goxmaganahadtlifvdédd Koratagere Taluk andpstr-an,§1edd.dPW2 A' an electric wire and also ciosed djrnouthd with such intention "and Rnowledgtj acts if he__ had of he wouid havefibeen "gju.,i1t3r of an offence punishable XPC, thereby accus..ed offe;nc'e punishable section dd learned trial} Judge has . p1'operiy_»d'appreciated the evidence on V°..__d1'ecord?Ar._ S ' (3) W'b[eth.e1t«the impugned judgment calls for
--. 'interference?
' order?"
7.' H ""Qn' examination of the evidence of prosecution 2 AA witnesdses, I find that PW2--Gowramma (injured) was the solitary eyewitness. PW3--Kumbaiah, who is aiieged to have yva' -£3/L. \..4Z£\, /~ 6 reached place of occurrence on hearing hue and has not supported the case of prosecution. PW4.«~Rajanna and PW6--Thimmalg}§a are'"*p.§l5t¢occu.rrence. witnesses. PW5--Shivakumar, istl-aldlegedgtol ' spot mahazar has not supVpo__rtedV"the' casejof;
PW'?-Sathish @ Suresh & alleged to have attested have not supported thegcase of given by
PW9--Dr.l\/»Eu_ddcu;}.s:t'is.hia,a %g~e'1'nté's 'erzarnination of PW2 and injuriesby 'dl'liev~eV§idence of PW10-Arifulla & PWl:1--Krislinainurtliyévrelateshto the investigation of case.
8. deposed; during intervening "of 25/'26,Q_2,2000 at 12 midnight, accused had . outrage modesty of PW6 [daughter-in-law of 2 hue and cry raised by PW6, PW2 switched ori lightand accused ran away from that place; on the it an .£o;1ovt+ing day viz 26.02.2000, when PW2 was cleaning rice in the verandah of her house, accused told PW2 not to inform the incident of previous night to any body and if she informs J\.?- C-2 » '(X "N (/1 V'''((<',»x M7 the same to others, he would be put to shame; accused for visiting her house again; at got enraged and tied an electric \.2_vireg_'arou'nd" = tried to strangulate her; PW2 fell' was shifted to hospital; PW?' has identified M.O.l before the Court. depolsedfithat came and saved her from _ ' Though A.PW2 lengthy cross-
exami11atior1i_: to show that PW2 had e1'11niti;xA: «'D'-uring cross--examination, PW2 has deposed suffered bleeding injuries on her neck andh.e1'.Vclothe's_weirestained with blood. 9;' EE§Vx'3~Ku'nibvaia.l:r, who is alleged to have saved PW2 ' .ffrm.~g ivlaarads of accused, has not supported the case of l'prosecu'tior1V,'u1=Therefore, PW3 was declared as a hostile witness and he was cross--examined by the learned Public » it Prosecutor. Even during cross--examination, no incriminating evidence was brought on record.
'j\_,l_ (3/\x,«zg{m .
10. PW4--Rajanna is the son of PW2-Gowramma. is a post--occurrence witness. PW4 has deposed; about occurrence, he came to his house and fC'}'L1l'vl"C1"'1Zs"'.3.."'2_:1'lZ'V' accused had strangled PW2 with an"e1'ectri.c wire} b lying in the hall of his house cofitusivon the neck of PW2; there was loleedlng frvom the mouth' 'ofjPW2.'" V During cross-exapminatioxiii.Fwd has reiterated that there was contusion VPW2 and there was bleeding frompher were stained with blood... handed over to police. PW4:has' PW2 and PW4 had borrowed a sum the father of accused and when ac'§{:use'd anduhisl demanded the same, PW2, PW4 and ~ .,in«.order to avoid repayment of loan concocted the case = with the help of PW}.
11'. .. l3'W5-Shivakumar had attested spot mahazar. PW5 not supported the case of prosecution. Even otherwise, evidence of PW5 is inconsequential. Q"
Q lmnwaaw -
_ 9 ._
12. PW6--ThiInmakka is the daughter-in~law of_.PW2i'i?W6 has deposed: on a certain day about four year:-:'»:d..!'3'a"c§;'jg:~g1:i_1:1*1'.1_:'1'«__,.;V midnight accused had trespassed into her.house'v tried to . outrage her modesty; when she'»._rai:se.d:' 'i3.f'v_V2 switched on light and accu_s-ed ran-away PW6 out of fear did not infolrrlfrlgher (PlB/4): on the following day, PW6 anducame to the house, by then PW2_..ha_d, hospital; PW6 visited hospiftaldjjand "around the neck of PW2. PW6.»I1a's ..de"posed3 «that lV[.O.l--*electI*ic wire was not the one, which was fou1i.Vd~=p_lace of occurrence; the wire, which she hadls-.een,, was sniailiand thin. vijuring "c:7o_ss;e;xamination, PW6 has reiterated the »:g'ocVcurVrence"~--that took place on intervening night of PW6 has denied suggestion that PW2 had bdrrowed' money from accused; when accused had V * demanded PW2 to repay money, PW2 concocted the case V against accused. Ex; x u an w
--ll (3) Two abrasions over right cheek, measuring i/2"~_'x. (4) Pressure marks over chin, measuring 2" 2;: V2"---'.. deep: _ b (5) Abrasion over right side of neck,..vrriea-surivrig i/via"
suI>erficia1. " . * ' (6) Abrasion over right side of the neciit ri1eas'uring«-3,'[Vx.3V2". --. V L'
16. PW9 has recorded histo.ryx:of_ir§juries duetofiassault on 26.02.2000 at about '4-.é§0.p..m2},,' :.néai,~j the. house of PW2 by " i * " ' ma.
Muddurangaiah S/o --"i:fi'1it>p.anna.V'(accused No.1] fir an electric Wire... found on PW2 could be electric wire marked as M.O.l. However, 'from of injuries, I find that PW2 has not suuffered.v"anyVir1jury to her neck by electric wire and there"'WaVs no ligature mark around the neck of evidence given by PW10--Arifu11a & PW11- Krishnamurthy relates to investigation of the case. PW2 was the injured and solitary eye--witness. PW2 Viwas the victim of assault. PW2 did not have any reasons to V W {en a:
W 12 _ falsely implicate accused. PW2 might have attempted to exaggerate the version of occurrence. The medics} e.evvide~1r_1__ceg_ of PW9 to certain extent would lend cori'oboiration to evidence of PW2. During crossvexamin%1tion,t._'a~-- was put to PW2 that she had -1;.>orrovued" a stieint ; from accused; in order to loan, she had concocted the case' is ridiculous. A t V it it t
19. At this it relevadnt._to:tstate that PW2 was aged .a'n'oi,1t:F}O the time 'of occurrence and she is a rustic'._vi°i14ag'er.V'iii»,thtécisrciirnstances, it is not possible to believe had vborrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/-- from avcéiisetd and she____concocted a story to avoid repayment of ' glean .t_o>a'c.ci1s_ed. It is seen from the evidence of PW2 and it incident had taken place on the intervening nightof 25/26.02.2000 involving the accused. As the case " was not registered against accused for outraging the modesty o'i'15W6, there was no investigation into the incident, it is not "app1'opriate for this Court to speculate as to what had 5.2}; 'I - 5% ~~<'gfi' ~ 13 happened on the intervening night of 25/26.02_,20{J«()T,'~V.yet fact remains accused had visited the house of p.m. on 26.02.2000 in connection the_--'inc"i'dlent"thvat had " .
taken place on the previous scolded accused for visiting .her__house._orice , accused got enraged and l.:'Vv'i:.':.:I'§0'l3?'€V€T, the evidence of PW2 that electric vvire around her neck and death does not find support evidencewgiven by PW9. The injuriesi'*s1.1ifi'eredl:':¢}93r PW2_ldescribed supra do not indicate that there 'wasIigatuieélniaricaround the neck of PW2, which could have if she had been strangled with "The eviden_ce_of PW4 and PW6 that accused had .0 strangled __With an electric wire [M.O.1} is falsified from ~thle._niedli'jca__l"evidence given by PW9 and the contents of certificate. From the evidence of PW9 and h Acontents of Ex.P.4, I find that injuries suffered by PW2 were 0 Ksi'rnfile in nature. In the history of assault furnished by PW2.
" is stated that PW2 had suffered injuries due to assault
-- 14 with an electric wire by accused. Though PW9 has"'----opined injury No.4 could be caused by M.O.1-electric "not possible to hold that there was strangulation"-of as there was no ligature mark:"aro'undo--fXPW2.lj' Injury No.4 as described by prosecution has no caseltliativgjlaccused had strangulate PW2. it h ;
Thus on over fiiglvigcience, I find that accused simple injuries to her; PW_21°ar1Vd.__d:oth'e.r'prosecution witnesses have given exaggerated :_to.__Tn1ake it appear that accused had madegAatten1Vpts"o'n thevlife of PW2. The learned trial Judge g\"2vitbou%' noticingltlliese discrepancies has held accused guilty punishable under section 307 IPC and senten-celc'ij_« 'him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a pericdi of five years. Therefore, finding recorded by the 3" V. _leaf:ned trial Judge that accused had strangled PW2 with an electric wire marked as M.{).}. with such intention and knowledge by such acts if he had caused death of PW2, he a'\;__ (*1, -x'-»(,'{[?« _ 15 i would have been held guilty of an offence pu.nishabl.e.__under section 302 IPC and thereby accused committed offence punishable under section 307 IPC cannot fact remains accused had causedvs;*oluntgtI3r* _ an electric wire marked as M.O. as M.O.1 can be used to'5f1*;a».I..1§ula't'3j_ 9» "deatho.tl Therefore, I am of the judgment requires modification. A l
20. In the result, I \, in part. The conviction of accusedVV"for a.vnxoffence':idunishable under section 307 IPC is setiaside. Theaccusevd is acquitted of an offence punishable . 'u.nC1erA»se::tion 307 IPC. The accused is convicted for an ._offence:"p»i_1_nisl'iab1e under section 324 nvc and conviction of accused an offence punishable under section 448 IPC is . ., A Cal.l:ec'i[for."l--
-16 Regarding sentence:
21. Sn' K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for"*a'c.clused would submit that accused was aged about time of occurrence and he is a rnaifriegd person";'* wife" .
and two children to care for and 'riagedpfarents. riiéiintain. The accused does not bear.._ any'-._crirninal' A..antece::1ents;Vi~ therefore a lenient View may beutaken regarding sentence.
22. Sn' Vijaykumar Mzl;_agé,s-.1§§ai~n§d'I%_nec§ for State would submit that a,ecus_ed toxzutrage the modesty of PW6, that, on the following day, he threatened ppPV&';_h'a.ridVlaslsaxilted PW2, who at the relevant time was 'ahout Gflfyears, therefore lenient View is not 1 rvldearing learned counsel for accused and learned ll_CfGPV.for':-.V.E3tate and also bearing in mind militating and extenuating factors. I pass the following sentence:--
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a "line of Rs.l0,000/- with default sentence of three months for an J'\.3 K, L' s. gt.
--1'7 offence punishable under section 824 IPC. The acccnsed is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for~«~~a"_pe_riodVV"of three months and pay a fine of it sentence of one month for an foffence punishablevurnder section 448 IPC. Out of fine -1 paid to PW2~«Gowramma if alive; Aéntefice of ' imprisonment shallv run g..co;1ct':rrent1y. «'The./Epenod of detention undergone the" trial and after the impugnedgjdudgment provided under section 428 Cr.P;C;"'evT'nej5leaitgged "tria1'Jt1'd~ge.s;r1a11 secure the accused to implement is directed to send back records alonggd aa_ of this judgment, sag Jud§§ immediiately. ~