Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Yedrami Police ... vs Ninganagouda @ Linganagouda on 17 March, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17"'smx OF MARcH,2§Qé f:f,
P R E S E N T
THE HON'BLE Mr.Ju3T1¢émV}c,$ABHAfiI$ " _'
A_N D
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUsT:CE B.V{NAGERfi?§fiA
CR:MINAL~3pPEAL'fiQ{i3;2/2001~"
BETWEEN
__----_.__.
STATE OF KéR¥fiTAKA.€ R ; """
BY YEDRRM1_?Oh$CE"STATICNT_ '
JEWARGI $ALug_ *'a "
...AppELLANT
(BY 3&1 Magaocfigéfifisag ace?)
AND--,
.... _. --n-f_--n.
°"N:NéAfiAGbupA @%LiNGANAGouDA
u SfO RAJSEKHAR GOUDA
'~AGEG-2?,YE%R3
oCC:AsR:QuLTuRIsT
R/O AKHANDALLI, TALUK JEWARGI
. » ..RESPONDENT
":j.@B¥_séI N VEERABHADRAIAH, Amrcus CURIAE) -2- THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS _EI£EDefUfiDER_ * SECTION 373:1) & 3 OF cpT9,c.: AGAINST ITHE JUDGMENT DT. 30.6.2001 PASSED_BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GuLBAReR'1IN' SaCgNQ.3lf§6 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT wenccusaeg FOR jTHE"a OFFENCES UNDER sEcTIo_3e2 R/w 34':Qc:§~«w~ THIS APPEAL poMINgIf»;=§oR'HEARIfiG THIS DAY, SABHAHIT .J DELIVERED $fiEfiEOLLOWING:
J U D.G M e N T Q_E This agfieel by tfie Sféte Is against the judgmeeé of aeéfiifitel péééaa by the Principal sessiéns-Judgé;fégI§arga in S.C.No.31/96 dated 30.6-20oi:_ ~*,2g uThe*«essential facts of the case 'leadingap§"to this appeal with reference to tHeWren§ of fihe parties before the trial Court '. are aeQfdllows:~ \§--»\..5"\ -3- It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.8.1995 at about 5 p.m. when the com;51a.i_n'gfiit.VA' Siddanagouda (P.W.8} and his materh§'1VVV.;;hcle_"
Bassanagowda (9.W.l0) were going tegerds thei;_ village Yedremi from Akhahdaili"by werhn near the nala, they heard eceebodytdceiiihé from behind and found Lthetj it hweév Shirehagowda {C.W.3) and _ thereefiteréi heiiih the three proceeded --£¢wa§§s ifikhahdeili and when they were near=the_creee§dEejashekaragcuda (accused No.1 in S:C,No,fi3f97? and his son Sanganagowda h"«{ace5sed."No.2"«ih"dS.C.No.43/97), Ninganagouda '?gag¢us§a ii; S.C.No.3l/96} and Khudansab S/0 Sebgddinifihfibad (accused No.3 in S.C.No.43/97) ix*w "came "there and started abusing their elder- Vxvihencie Sharanappa. Rajashekaragouda pushed .E*fiiSharanappa and threw him on the ground and the i'other three accused assaulted him with stones "\,c3 \,.
-4- and sticks. Sharanappa sustained bleeding injuries and succumbed to the same. P.W.i3 who was working as A31 in Yedrami police statien, was on duty as Station House Qfificerwflon', 27.3.1995. At about 9.oo_,p.nt ;éfi""£ha£*feay,"
P.W.8 wsiddanagouda went to the police station and lodged a written comylaint as pg: Ex;P.9.-i The said complaint was registered in ES Crime No.45/9e.";E.W:i3. prepared FIR and sent the same to the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, he .searched'~forr the accused but could not *<-.traeeV=them. V""on """ 28.8.1995, he conducted '7,induest "over the dead body of Sharanappa be;eegn:?;Go p.m. and 8.30 p.m. as per Ex.P.4. r=Qn the same day, he conducted panchanama of rrthe scene of offence between 9.30 a.m. and «_iHMfO.30 a.m. He also seized bloodstained earth, sample earth, four handful stones, one big \§_.\ ..'\
3. Government Pleader for the appellant -9- We have heard the learned High Court
-State and the learned counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to present the case poff the respondent, by order dated 5.2.2OO8r:vftd2
4. urged, the points huthati" arise "ffor'5 our' Having regard 'to7 the --contentions determination in this appeal are; ' dwfiinganaqouda @ " Whether hthe judgment of acquittal paesedc, by the trial Court in .TH$.C.No.31/96 acquitting the accused Linganagouda, if_respondent in this appeal, of the x offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec.34 of IPC is justified and calls for interference in this appeal?
What order?
\5au'<
-10..
5. We answer pint No.i hoidingefthat the judgment of acquittal passed hi the £::a1*_ Court is justified and" doesr notN_warrantb interference insofar as hitg relates. to rthe respondent in this appeal. .:n,y1ew"b£ our finding on point §o.l;"peint No.2 is answered holding that the ;a§péai_ is} liable to be dismissed for the following reasons; The iearned"High Court Government Pleader hae taken us through the depositions of P.Ws.lo »;tQ 15 and the contents of the documents get urfiarked by the prosecution and submitted that the judgfient of acquittal passed in favour of i=3"the vrespondent/accused is liable to be set 27aside in View of the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 'Hand the recovery of M.O.l6 --axe on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused. \}Wi -11-
6. On the other hand," tnetileatned7e counsel appearing for 'the flrespondentfaoeused'. submitted that. the judgment «of scquittal is justified as the material on tecoro ooes not prove the guilt of the fieseondenti Afie further submitted that not filed any appeal against the fiusgfiéfit of acquittal of othét aseggea he :55 oofimon judgment which is iefiuened fijxttnis afifieal, the judgment of acquittal nae to 1%? confirmed ifl respect of this respondent aiso.
gigiatwe have considered the contentions 'Lot tne learned High Court Government Pleader for otne appellant --State and the learned 'VA:oeunsel for the respondent -accused. -12-
8. It is to be noted at ti*;~e...do~ut'e:etA in the complaint filed by Bowed; offencevwasi alleged against accused 1 to 4. Howeyer; oniy Ninganagouda who is flthea reepohdent herein could be apprehended aahddlinyestidation was completed ,againeto}him€dehoeing the other accused_{ae§iabecohdindi and" chargeeheet was filed €againetxihih);?ufAtter apprehension of other_ three' acedeed,j chargesheet was filed againatthee aiao and the case was committed to the Seeeione Court and both S.C.Noe.3l/96 ~wA_ahd1hé3?37 were clubbed together and common A" "evidence lees recorded. The State has not fireferred any appeal against the judgment of flnVacquittal of accused Noe.l to 3 in dedS;C.No.43/97, but has preferred the appeal * only against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent herein in S.C.No.3l/96. Both the \"v\5"
_ 13 _ session. cases 'were disposed. of by' a comon judgment dated 30.6.2001 and the_ reason assigned by the trial Court for acduittai of all the accused is common. Further} «it dis ta clear from the perusal of thefevidence oi the ' complainant -P.W.8 gas aiso" the teyewitfiessv P.W.lO and other material_on record that even on merits, the fiudgmeht of acquittal passed by the trial Court is justified. It is evident in the _csmsis1std filed by P.W.8 that the accusedu Rajashekharagouda (accused No.1 in fi"t_§}C§fioJ€3/97}Woushed Sharanappa and threw him 2 «on the ground and the other accused {accused Nss,2'ssd 3 in S.C.No.43/97 and the accused in "t s.c;Ns.31/96) assaulted runs with stones. It Aitdisi also elicited in. his evidence that when dthey went near the deceased Sharanappa, they found that he had sustained severe injuries \§v'
-14..
and Sharanappa informed them that tfie aoeusedp ' had assaulted him with stonee and axe; 54¢. However, the said fact is not revealed in the' complaint and is zn1ein§:ovement.umde iJ1 the evidence. The cofioiainafit has not specifically stated tnat :it"s@waeD,!nindanagouda, the respondent_ne§einK one assaoited the deceased with. age; i?ne oeeidenoeiiof .... the complainant himself' §euia'_$n§wa that Ninganagouda along with dine: {go a§§as§a viz., Sanganagouda and Kfipdansab assaulted Sharanappa with stones. It .:*is furthe; elicited jjm the cross--examination H' etr §;W;8" that they saw' the incident frogs a distance' of half a furlong. If really the "compiainant and other witnesses had seen the toeooused assaulting Sharanappa, the question of 'they making enquiry with Sharanappa who had sustained severe injuries does not arise. \/<2/\,53> .
-15- Even otherwise, as already stated ,above; ta Sharanappa had not infotmed~ the ccomolainant that it was Ninganagoudagi the tgespondenfi; herein, who assaulted? his 'with: axe. The evidence of the e§ewitness4&é;W,i0 is also not helpiuii. to._the proving that the resfiondenti has ieosditted the offence alleggd with the other accnsed as it is ciear from his evidence that Rajashethatadd@da*#wshed Sharanappa and threw him on the gfoand and then, Ninganagouda hit "'_§hatahaopa on his head with the axe and :C'$anganadonda and Khudansab assaulted him with stones" on his head and thereafter P.W.10, ueAP,W[8 and C.W.3 went near the place and all 7 the accused went away towards Akhandalli and " when 'they' went near Sharanappa, he informed them that the accused had assaulted him with -17- the State has accepted _the7Wjddgfient sdfd' acquittal passed against, the; othes" aeeysed, the respondent herein is also entitled to tnei benefit of doubt which has been given to the other accused. "* fherefoféi" the judgment of acquittal i*Qf gthedgdresnondent passed in S.C.No ..3.i;.f'9é§;';: sshi}f_-ti" is .._«-itfnpizgined in this appeal without x;m§ee¥e9gV'tneH judgment of acquittal passed in $:C}Ne}§3f97-wherein all the accused have been aegditted in: a common judgment on the vbasis. of Vcommon reasoning, does not .'=warfant interference. In View of our finding ';5s'i,~ni'~i,:vs.i, point No.2 is answered holding t"i'1at---Ttiie appeal is liable to be dismissed. V"sA¢cotdingly, we pass the following order:
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment cf acquittal dated 30.6.2001 passed by the \5a.fi -13- Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Sessions Case No.31/96 is confirmed.
The assistance rendered by the ,lssrned counsel who is appointed as Rmicus_Curisé is placed on record and his fee" is gfixed sat '; Rs.5,000/-.
Sdffii M93 Sdl Judgg"