Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Cpi Of Somwarpet ... vs C S Lokesh S/O Sheshappa on 26 August, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
./
IN THE HIGH Conn? 012* KARNATAKA AT BA_h!*§f§}§Lf§I§;I3'. _
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY 03 AuG§;s1'~§Gw3:6~~:: _ Q "
PREsEN'r\_
THE HOWBLE MR JUS'.}"l€__If'. K S§qEEoH.;319é :2 K
AMI)?
THE HON'BL§',._'iy&R..-iUEgY!A'iC3Fg'J§i;'.f.PIN'l'{§ H
cmmpmx.
ETWEEN:
S'I'A'i'E op' .
BY cm O_E'__SOMWA1Rf'ET CIRCLE- _
(BY sR£;§>.M.p§A$i*2'%?r+5"\\Di.. S9:=;- I
1. c.s.1.0KESH, =
OF SHESHAl?PA,.
AGEDABQLFF 29 YEARS,
LA =.AGR1cU1.1f1:r--R1s'r,
_ c;:owpL1J%y1L.LAGE,
" _ "SQMWARPEflfTALUK.
. Ac.._R.s_u mS'HT,
son; 09 C.K.RAJU,
AGED..21 YEARS,
" CQOLIE,
V._C¥i0WDLU VILLAGE,
SOMWARPET "£'ALUK.
KULLA @ BOJA
son 09 SIDDAIAH,
0001.13,
mar) 20 YEARS,
caow DLU VKLLAGE,
semwmepm TALUK.
APPELLANF
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRl.C.H.JADI-IAV, SR, COUNSEL) FOR R1 85 R3. = .' THIS cmia. FILED U/S 373 (1) 85 (3) cR.P.c,-'E3? ma THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE'C'.OUR'~I' MAY» BE PLEA-SED TO GRANT' SPECIAL LEAVE TO 'F'I'LE--A'N RPPEAL AGNES'? THE JUDGMENT AND:"0RfiER'--,Ol?< .AcrgiJrri*AL"; D'I'.6.{)1.{)4 PASSED BY THE mist.-~31; 8.5}.-.,, "-1(Of)£&_(}U;--i MADIKERI, IN s.c.No.13/01;, '--.ACQUi'}*1'INC}«. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED ma THE oFFEr:i:Ar;s,'_P/u;/ss 302,307,114 R/W SEC.34 op % _ mrs APPEAL is comma E03,, HEARINQ @5113 DAY, pimo J, DELIVERED.TH.if3 p*c:Li.ow1_gs<3;'-..¢ :JL'I..!(§M1Elj"Kf_ " % This appi¥.§a1 g?g,Va'i';;en 3»;iig "ihe"ordax~ dated 5431- 2004 thc 1 A' Sfisgions Judge, Kodagu, "in aoquitting the accused-
mspondentsiisfiindcr Sccs.302, 307 r/w 34 IPC r/§§'%'3b*r ipc. panics' an-: mfen-ed in mi; ing to their rank in the 1113' 3 coun.
2. ofthc case are that on "278. 1.0.3300 at about a ;in.,, midnight, the accused are alleged to have the murder at' one Pmkash at a. place cafled ~Ii$:mbctta in Chowdlu village within the limits of V Somawarpct Police Station by accused No.1 assaulting with lcathi onthenock ofthcdcocased andaocusedi2and3 abetting the commission of the murder of the '_ The further ailcgation in the chargcé ' accused is that on the same date, 54-: .' 1 caused grievous hurt to _ ' "
him with kathi when 115: um kiliing the deceased thereby Mahcsh also, whereby A-1 is further the ofihnee
3. the accused, the 1 examined in ail 18 wvimcsstéé to P-17 and produced Mos.1 to 4' " . ' J%_°14.%3me?%%a1ercn§¢V5f£hc accuscc: being one of totai dome!' , 'v4§;cfv"_i;:1arkcd Ex.D-1 to D-3 being ccmfied' hf judgment, injury ecrtifimte of Lava and statement of rrw-12. Aflier heating the A and the defence, the ktarncd Sessions Judge pleased to acquit the accused of all the charges. ' fiance, this appeal by the State. 5 //
5. PW-1 is Narayana who has flied the complaint in co3;mec'tion with this case. He has stated that he is the bmtherofthedeoeased Prakashandheis aneye to the incident. He has further stated that the % happened in front of his house and efe b ofiencc there 'was 'Ayudha .V Hence, he had gone to the sgigi to the town along with his fam}1y« :'.» Theme :.'oreI}eef:a in the p and in that the H some alteztzations at the was going on. Thereafier he persons from his brother = them not to quanel between otheh he took his brother and came to the misc' The quarrel took place at about 9.30 p.n1.at ihcefivatc bus stand of Somwmpct town. " *--h._§.hitisimhcevidenceor PW-1 thattbmmaficrmthc accused by name Kulla, Lekcsh, Suresh and T person Lava came near to their house and they " wantedto tanmithhim. Hetokithemthatsinoeitismid /?
night, they can tail: in the morning but ~ back. Accused Lava was having a Ad Lokesh took kathi from Lava as;s.¥u':1§;a«1%%' bmther Pmlrash on his lefi: sitie-.9fthe1;e"c:k, mahesha tried to separate the tile' three accused caught hold VH!¥'!a}ee"sh§:1 easaulted Mahcsha and abetted A--1 has assaulted portion of back side of » they raised voice and others followed him. I-"ra@h was shiflaed in the hospitaiu atux doctor examined Prakash and v ----- -«Mahesh was treated there itself. was lodged by PW--~1 in the Poficc Statidfi The Police came to the spot am as per Ex:.P-2. This Witness has been V' by the defence. The enmity between them has been brought out in the cross " -. . eiémjzaatioa.
'3'. PW--2 Mahesh is the injured in this case, He has reiterated the vcrsion of PW~1 regarding Ad. and other accused taking altcrcations in Somwarpet town at 9 p.m., on Ayudha Pooja day and thereafter, brought back by PW-I, all the four b bonus: of P'W--I and thcxeaficr, on his mack by a kathi. Further h¢*h;;s_ stat ¢ci assaulted him by means of 'Héidc of V shoulder. He has sufl'cmti..gxievbiis 8:; _v stated that he is pacified the accused mld witnesses me date of incident. Em'.-%_4 a sipatoxy to mahazar Ex.P~»2. PW- is the witness who has attested to the séiz1.j'rc v($i'. 3E.?f¥'V#':1:VV1svo1tn by Mahesh. PW-6 Manohar has tummt case of the pnosecufion.
VA A10: PW-7 Dr. K. Srinivasa Rae has conducted post ' examination on the dawned Prakash am has " gmtod that there was an oblique incised wound on the neck U of the deceased above medial Icfi ciavick: and has further injured. P'W- 13 is pc 315 who has taken the 55 FSL , Bangalore for examination. PW-14 speaks regarding the quarrel deccasod and injmed. PW-_15 *m.i3..Honnapp§ "isvfh€: '~ simatoxy to Ex.P-10 "i5W-16 Udaya Singh is anothcr"'W_ijh£1cs§""' of clothes of the deceased. who has issued birth Lava who 'm a juvenile ifias. been scwtcly triad before t Nagamj is Piolicc Inapmtg: Who~ ' inquest in this case mt! arrested t1ic.._4 voluntary statement and _ statcn§;c;t1t* of .v§:fi1;;1e:sses, received medical report and filed the charge sheet.
" ~. Vaxibiimciafion of the evidence of these . wih1Es:.ses, thé§ learned Sessions dudgc has acquitted the .. _. 'A the chargesé lcvellcd against thcm. ~ of acquiuai.
' The Smtc has filed thisappcal against the order :5. Heard sn P.M.Navaz, Addl. 3.129. antlf Jaxihav, learned Sr. Counsel for accused. The submits that eye witness account the end' once of doctor and the avcz.9"r;<1Vei1'..t:_tsA'iv:t1 F.IVR_ ._ clearly go to show that R~1V» 'the:~.ofi'enoc of V causing death of 'thczefom, he deserves to be convicted' the There is full corroboration of_e_Ve_ the evidence of the doctor previous enmity betwceu__t11e on the one side and on 'prosecution has proved the case against for of deed and injury to 'He stated that the order of aoquittai may and accused may be convicted for the v..'--:*a.gai:ast them.
Jadhav, learned counsel flair accused on the "other submits that the incident had happened at the A t and there was no light at the scene of i The incident has pmocded by another quarrel in the town and since §t is Ayudha Pooja day, there would 4' /% have been some type of emotion between % therefore, the evidence of the prosecution ' be hC1'tCVC£i' and he submits yo?f corroborative independent witness, v-ordcxjeéf V' V *' may be sustained and the 'be V H
17. After careful on reconi and also the oxzjside, we are of the opinion by the injured Witness aside. It is the case imident that before eocuse§i"A_N"o§1' L' he has assaulted the deceased -_ee_ neck by bamboo sticks. This fI§.fii1c=1f___.eo11nborated the presence of blood the scene of occurrence and also the evifiiencey of {note eye witnesses. In the circumstamces , fan 11 as to Why the evfi encc of PW--2 hem' g V witness should be diebeneved. "13. The Apex Court in 2002 see (Cri) 597 between T '"Majju and another vs. State of MP. has held as under :
/f " A. Cfiminal 'I'n'a1 ---- Witnesses --- injured _ Murder-Even though the witnesses were « 'the deceased and thus intczested i sustained ixzjmies in the incigiezgt, "was , mcxhcal' certlfi' cates issued by wlib'~ ' med' them, their presence at he "of aoubmd -- Their evidence being no infirmity therein--- ' VL ifcociie, 1 of Iigfi_f6ffl'the above decision, we hold :theVpmsecVVV I' been suefixl in br1agn' ' g home _ the 2 Lgnjflt pf 140.1 C.S.Lol-msha causing Prakash and also causing to PW-2 Mahesh. However, so far as presence of A~2 and A-3, it is doubtful C and the"7§31fi4er of acquittal passed against them by the x V' VSeSsi=gns"' Court does not require interference at the hand of
19. Now It has to be noted as to the nature of oficnce committed by accused No.1. It is seen that the deceased was unarmed as seen. from the evfience of wimesgte fllrther to be seen from Ex.D-«I that there _ criminal pmceaiing pending between the _.
and the respondents since the of long standing enmity b€1$V€CI1'i1'tt3 it V L. at the spur of moment the happened between the two pareesibe ma ma; R-1 and others have folknyed fight fmm Somawarpet going on till the house of h It C H Jacihav, learned counsel that acfefio§nag"p:"o.1uc§d Ex.D-2 which is the wound '_ of the' juvenile oifender. It is seen that in is an averment that A-1 had snatched The wound certificate Ex.D-2 does V -V not»'.i§o1;1té1:h1" details of date, time and piace of ofience H u them is djsclepancy regarding the nme of the éseéiiont in the said wound certificate. However, the FIR Vt ' "mentions that there is injury on the person of Lakes!) Rm}. Ithastobeseenthattheincidenthashappenedinthe miénight and it is the case of the defence itself that there was no presence of light at the scene of offence and therefore, the incident would have happened between the two parties and in View of such . ofi'e-nee comes down to Sec.304--l ofIPC ~ k .1 was holding a weapon M0-1 116-
in the hands of the deceased; 4 of PW2 states that the injuries sadhu and Krishnappa, are not matter, we hold that the far as death of Prakash is
concerned the definition of Sec.3(}4-I of v on Mahesh is concerned the ofiencc node: _ WC is clearly made out.
Sri 0.1-1. Jadhav, learned counsel for 4' zegandmg' the sentence to be imposed on He submits that theincident hams' gtaken
-- the year 2000, after lapse of 10 years, aocufi " not be send to jail. He further submits that accused A. wasincustody forapcriodof Syearsand Smonthsand that wouki be sufiicient punishment so far as _ concerned. However, in View of @?;s and cimzxjiastaomts of the case, we hold ' that the period of;:5 oifenoe under Sec.3{)4--I of end}; of 5"3*5'°°- . 1 ._
22. Themrom, msfoondeIiiW:_Ne;:<:§'Vfixykesle for offence under to undergo rigorous ieforgp pay a fine of Rs.100€)/-, tie§ieex¥go impxisonmcnt for a 'or under Sec.326 II-'C is to undergo rigorous to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in to undergo 3 months sentences shall run concurrently. 310.1 is entitled for set 011' the period' aheady V' ne and shall undergo sentence for zemam in' g pm-iod
24. Respondent No.1 shall surrender before the trial court to serve out sentence imposed against him. The learned Scssioas Judge is directw to execute. the. as herein. bcfo-It directed.
The appeal is partly % % JUDGE JUDGE