Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Manjunath Ganesh Hegde on 13 July, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH" COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1311; DAY OF' J I
PRESENT _ I_ I CA n
HONBLE MRS JUSTICE G.
4_AN1:j''--.A_I' . I . I A
HON'BLE MR.
cR1M1NA.L..gIRPEAL'R§. fr-.5 of 2061
BETWEEN
THE STATE G2-fi<A,RN:ATAR;9;
(BY SR1. I.;x;'R;'»RA?ri )_
(D
,j. .:cVGr.}IPLA1NANT--APRELLANT
. MAVRNJUNA"fH'i'G..zxNE'SH"REDGE
MAJ QR", GCG; ;aGR;GLJ'L'I'URE
R / 0. SAT} I.UGAD':)E A
YA.LLAPU'R TRLUK;-
"vE----s'AT}v£YANARAYANA GANESI-IA HEDGE
. V AG.ED2;1 YEARS,
' OCC:--.._AGRJ_CiULTURE
~. '-R/O.' SATHUGADDE
' .._THATAG;ARA VILLAGE,
'YALLAPURA TALUK.
.--.SUi3'RAYA GANESHA HEDGE
MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
°'R/G. SATHUGADDE
THATAGARA VILLAGE
YALLAPUR TALUK..
IN.)
4. VISHWESHWARA GANESHA HEDGE
AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. SATHUGADDE
TI-{ATAGARA VILLAGE
YALLAPUR TALUK.,
UTTAR KANNADA DIST.
(BY ANANT R. HEGDE, I<.S. BAT4IL,?'.'.H*EDG~E_,"'
...RE:'§POI\I~DEI\TTS_T_k A V'
PATIL, SRLJEEVAN NEERAL(}I_4__AND".PPITIL ADVS' I4'c)R RI
R4, M. RAMA BHAT FOR R1..-R-.3, AND R..B.v.,_D'ESvH.I.>ANDE'~.'
FOR R4)
THIS cRL.A. IS RIL.E'D U,*S.37B{._I},&.(3) CR.P.C. BY THE
SPP FOR THE STATE 'A RRAyI;~Ni:3 "T'H.A*I*. _ THIS H.0N'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED T0' G--RAI«.IiIi LEAVE TO FILE
APPEAL AGA1N_'$T.__THE'JUDGMENT DT: 27.3.2001 PASSED
BY THE :JNIF?C;, ".YA:LL~APUR".._"-IN j C.C.NO.371/2000,
ACQUI'I"1'I1\I«C'£"vf1'i%{Ej_ RESBQNDEIjITS--ACcUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE FUN1_SHABLE3--5fLfN'DE;--R SECTIONS 324, 326, 341,
504 ANDSOE Rf~1I,I,{.VV3-*I_'I1?C~. ~
"THIS ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, 'MANJULA-.f.CHELLEJUR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLDwIN_G:.,
JUDGMENT
..T}3,iS..}ap_pea1 is filed by the State assailing the "I;1cIgrIIeirI:~;_z3E£ed: 27.3.2001, by the J.M.F.C. Court, in 2000. The resp0ndentS--acc:uSed were tried the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 UPC.
2. According to the Prosecution, on O4.()"§.";,2000 at about 3.00 p.m., near a place called Kaillararriaile cross, at Satugadde village of Yal1apur_ta1:u--kg,'iiiflieri it'liexi injured--complainant by riarnei who is none other than fir.st.4_cousin of theV»res}:5ondents to 4, was returning from on bicycle, the accused Nos. 1 to him and assaulted himwith airs-tone different parts of the limbs. Therefore, one working under the 'i Smt. Nagaveni Wife of complaiigéifitsv Hedge, came to the rescue of«5tnujV1i1"ed ll/£'r:.v(}_ogpal Sitaram Hedge, on hearing the ' and they were also assaulted by the "acclusedi*.i-i'cj'j_A5'"complaint came to be lodged by the conipliainant--Gopal Sitaram Hedge in Crime No.4/2000 evrih'ich came to be registered in Yallapur police station. igtriitially the injured--cornplainant and P.W.2--Nagesh Ganapati Bandekar were treated at Primary Health Center, Yallapur. Later they were shifted to Karriataka Institute ofMed1'ca1 Sciences (KIMS), Hubli. M
3. During the course of investigation.' ._apart_ from recording the complaint of th:e.ccjor:ap1:ainan.tSfihts hospital, statement of other-.,__injured"witr:tesse.s_ car:-:1eVtto"'t. be recorded and a mahazarld"'carn.e to"bed_drav§rn as per Ex.P.7 at the spotan.-iiiiatetf'the'»h91vestigating Officer collected the .woun;i-~-vc.5ertificatesA.'Vfro1r1'fthe concerned Doctors. '-\_§fe1'.__€ to PF' and after comoleti-x1'g charge sheet came to be filed.
'I*he.':vacc§1sed Nos. 1 to 4 were on bail » ;throt1gi1.ouAt"~--and they pleaded innocence to the charges '--frarned' them. Therefore, the matter was posted for eifvidence. In all 8 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 8 were 2 iedXa.mined and marked the documents as per EXs.P.1 to VfP.8 for the Prosecution. M.Os.1 to 4 were the material objects relied upon by the Prosecution. Ex.D.l i.e., F'.I.R and certified copy of complaint pertaining to'e',_rCrin'1e No.5/2000, registered in the same po1ice;""stati-on, Yallapur, wherein complainantfgfiopal_-*Sitiai=a:ni:
was made the accused along with 30.the':si,-Was"iriarlsed for the defence. No othere'evidence..Wos lie:t"ii1v,....Vsofar as' the accused are concerned:vV'l3tateme.nt--itinder Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was denial on the part of the ac_cL1Vsed,:"so'iar¥ at 3.00 p.m. on by relying upon defeynceivzwas that, at 3.30 p.rn., on complainant in this case Gopal Sitararri.Hedge;"':along with his coolie l\/Ir.1\iagesh ' gB"ande'kar,._exainiinieid in this case as P.W.2, with 2 it not-hers"trespassed into the house of his uncle i.e., father of-.preV_s'ent}'accused and tried to strangulate him with an nintentiosn to put an end to his life. As the said case iifiyended by filing a charge sheet against the present
-"complainant and others, therefore sofar as the incident in question pertaining to Crime No. 4/2000 is totally false, is the defence taken by the accused.
5. The learned Magistrate on appraisal ofentire evidence on record both oral and doc.1,.i1_n.e'ntf.afy, ultimately acquitted the accused of giving benefit of doubt. According charge sheet pertaining' to incident pertaining to becomes suspicious. He also 2 and 3 could not have heard. the screams-.o17_theinjured P.W.l as the distance_ place -of incident and the house of P.W.1 Hence, possibility of them scre'am:sv___of_P.W.1 due to alleged assault by the ' ;ac.cus,e'd, isrr'io_t possible. Aggrieved by the said judgment the State has come up in appeal.
».~' 2 .. :06; V The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Court, on earlier occasion, disposed of Crl. A. No.'775/2001, on 06.02.2002. After referring to the long standing litigation between the family of the complainant and the accused persons ara,d'~.._,ifthe bitterness, sofar as the feelings of both each other, the Division l3ench__of if that, after taking note of everythinig, "as the learned Special Puhlicj=.]?rose'cutor_: ands' defence counsel, there,' wasi"'rio",_:'chance' of tvgetting away from the fact that the points out the offences 324 and 325 against ' 4. Therefore, while iixsoifar as the offences punishablelu11.derj,'se'ctio»ns 341, 326, 504 and 506, the acquittal u'11de1'eVsection. 324 was set aside. The accused l"to'"4A wereucionvicted for the offences punishable 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
Tliey i_mp,c?sed fine of Rs.3,000/--(three thousand rupees ..only) "against each of the accused and directed to pay i'._lthe"isaid Rs.12,0oo /, [in all) within 3 months from the / ._- 3 date of order. Rs.l0,000/-- (ten thousand rupees only) was ordered to be paid to PM/.1 as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (one thousand rupees only] each 2 and 3, as compensation.
7. Aggrieved by the imposition ,si"cnt'enC_e,'* the respondents--accused Nos.i1_ to'*45 Hor1'b1e Apex Court in C'rirn~inaIii}--\pipea1 After referring to the personsrvwho Were..ieXa§nined as important witnesses :h_e~ e_1_3Vié%oivseic'1.i:tioirii»,._ their Lord ships referred to V ioy the learned judgment' of "itl'Ie_C'D_iVision' Bench, pronounced on the earlier occasion._ Thefipex Court after referring to the observation of '--the__pivision Bench of the High Court, felt ___the judgment of acquittal to one for the Division Bench ought to have given the reasoning for the conviction for the offences punishable ii tinder Sections 324 and 325 of IPC and therefore, in the igabsence of the reasoning by the Court as to why ., \7 accused should not be convicted by analyzin'gl"'or re- appreciating the evidence on record, the "of conviction by the High Court was set V
8. Accordingly while 'a.,ppeai',..iVi:t'he Apex Court remitted the lriiaititer for fresh disposal ,accordaricelvvit'h reason of the judgment of above said criminal matter on merits afresh. of the principle that, in a order of acquittal the normal, rule .»interfere with the order of acquittal,°'un1e.ss; thvereasoning of the trial Court is a pe'ri?er,.Se reasoning'.'"We are also aware of the settled law th:at,a. set of facts if two views are possible, the4lviex,;<,l_"vvhich is beneficial to the accused, has to be given" toithe accused. With these principles in our mind,
--.,we_ have gone through the evidence brought on record ll the prosecution before the trial Court. 10
9. The point that would arise for conisidepration "Whether the judgment of...tri:al_'c--ourt "
warrants interference?
10. The admitte-'d4___ facts" amf /:ghpat,i\§ lithe' complainant--Gopal Sitarainifiliiedge accused Nos. 1 to 4 are first coiisins of two brothers. Long pendirigcivil two families, has lead iactionmagainst the accused personsd that, all the accused Nos.ii_1 to ciiril battle to get partition and family properties. This is also borne "on record." With regard to incident earlier to the . 'incidentpinfquestion, there was a quarrel or dispute in =respect'.. Arecanut produced by the complainant from the go'doVyn of the accused, which came to be sorted, by ih'oldin,a panchayat, by the elders of the village.
"Cornplainant a_nd accused Nos. 1 to 4 are blood relatives i having animosity and bitterness against each other. It is ll also borne from the record, evidence of P.Ws. l and Police Sub Inspector (P.S.l.)~P.W.8 belonging to them were situated side a.nd_ some reason or the other theylusedgto 0 other. Complaints were lodged against each }othVeVr._.i§
11. As a mat.t§r of the present incident, on came to be registered the complaint of one V':Clri'rne No.5 / 2000 came to be slainelipolice station at Yallapur on .compla_inant--Gopal Sitararn Hedge, atifithe' ins":tar1'cei"'of father of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 na:IneA.Ganles'h"'Narayan I-legde. It is not the case of prolsecjution «._t_l.1at these 2 crimes are case and counter case. According to the prosecution, the incident pertaining to Crime No.4/2000 occurred at 3.00 p.m., Kallaramane Cross. According to the defence, on __the very same day at 3.30 p.m., the incident pertaining to Crime No.5/2000 happened in the hous-ey"o.1' Mr. Ganesh Hegde at Satugadde, which is from Kallaramane Cross. Ultimately, _has to be whether in View of Crime No.s1r2ooiotmeeiihgheht ' at 3.00 p.m. pertaining to false case. The comp1ainanit'v.i_in is not cited as witness in
12. _1nf_the the injured Hedge is examined.
Through came to be marked. He has got to 4--c1ubs, in his evidence. According ~to"1i.irn, 'Was hospitalized for 2 months and months' rest on account of the injury him. P.W.2 is one Nagesh Ganapati is a coolie working under P.W.1. He is also "examined as injured witness, apart from being an eyefsiwitness to the assault of P.W.1 and P.W.3-Smt. .. ,V_..i'i~IagaVani Gopal Hedge by the prosecution to corroborate ' "9 E6 filed against the accused persons at the ir1stan_ce of P.W.1 and his father. However, he denied the aagigeatieh that they all ended in acquittal. = complainant the road on whic"rii"tl1«e'incidentocc-urred was partly tar road and partlylt roiad."'l~le id4e'ngied,L that they filed criminal CaSE*«S:..."iln the ciros:s=--ei:$<varnir1ationi he admits that his hfodse i,s""at.'dVi'stancelof ehe furlong from Kallaramane from other route to t'l1e:'«£.,,hous_e one can reach to him, it would be 2 theifact that accused No.1 assaulitedhim on the left portion of the waist by throwing "stone from the distance of 25 feet. After ayvith the stone, the other three accused pe'1fs&on.sf"cyairiye.and on seeing them he did not try to run away fr'o1n<il'the spot. He also admits that at a distance of J ,al<H.m."fi*om the said cross, house of others are situated. "He 'claims, accused were assaulting him for 15 minutes i' "continuously. He further says that as accused came 17 both in front and back portion of him, he could not run away from the spot. He sustained bleeding injufies all over the body including legs. He became and only in the hospital he regained According to him, while screaming"for7he;lpi,:he_ tried to avoid assault, but it was no4tV..Ap'ossible;'.i,,iHe° furth,ei'.., confirms that when he Wasi°proceeding_o'11-Va 'bicycle, he was hit with a st0'19i¢"=.,_ant:l i"fell,.ivi"d.own. that time accused started to aspsaittlt that M.Os. 1 to 4 are the .,nor1'n---ally available in the rnarl~:;Vetiiiiaitdtithey,il'1aVe,i'1'1o identification marks. Within ioeis t;fi;5g,utee_,ij't1~«etn the time of scream, his wife and a serivaint-riusiliedi to the spot. A suggestion was him thatmyrhile he was proceeding on a bicycle, a pit and sustained injuries and the same denied. He also denies a false complaint being ..lodged= against the accused persons.
14. P.W.2--Nagesh Ganapati Bandekar is a_ coolie Working under P.W.1 and he is examined to co;tro'borate the evidence of P.W.1. However, it is the"l--casfe'i:ofl Prosecution that P.W.2 also sustainedllihjilifies.'_l_whti.lell' trying to pacify the quarrel. Azccoifiiiig am. he went to the he' heard the sound from..vKallar"alrf_1:ahei._cross§"Therefore, he along with P.W.3--wi1;elo_f the spot from where they the the spot they saw four? P.W.1 with clubs.
'l'hey:v'i2§l/ere' the legs and hands, hencel'*he'- of both legs. When he went, to P'.-Will, accused No.1 assaulted him Clllllb orilllllthe right leg", so also P.W.3 was he could not say who had assaulted P.W.3.___vBot.hiP.W.1 and himself were shifted to Hubli for beytte.r'=treatmer1t. He also identifies lVl.Os. 1 to 4 clubs. the cross--examination he admits that, he was " tvyvorking under P.W.l for the last 2-3 years and he 2 E9 comes from Hutkanda. According to him, it is at a distance of 8 l(.I}'1S. to the house of P.W.]_. '_HVe_i"-.._<:w_as engaged in paddy harvesting on that day,_'-'lrlel ~ the spot within 2 minutes on .hea.ring_'the' 'esp-rea1n.ing_f K V' When he went there, coinplainantivvas ground and accused were *as's_ault.i'ng 'l'1irri.? had".
bleeding injuries on his legs'.""llefound-lying on the road. The entire stained. He also becamg. injury on the what happened after the suggestion that as he was the was deposing falsely to help the clo'in;plaii"1ant. V A ll f_lSo.far as P.W.3 is concerned, she has also 'more orljesys deposed on the same lines of evidence of however she gave further details regarding A exactly P.W.1 left the house, in the morning. By 9 M lfor 10 a.m. P.W.1 left the house on 4.1.2000. By 8.00 20 a.m. P.W.2 was working in the house. At about 3.00 p.m. she heard the screaming from Kailararnane cross. Therefore she along with P.W.2 reached the--'js;io*t:j:"ahd saw her husband assaulted by accused V the legs with ciubs. She a1so""says":thati'V:v1ihey--i.i'wereVi abusing him in reckless ah_d"«_ abusi'Je'~..1angLiage,VV According to her, in spite theiviiaccusedii they did not heed to" her recfuciesft e'n¢1 startedassaulting her husband and when he tried to pacify the says that the accused" When P.W.2 sustained injuryihe Va1sov_.istartVe'd:\Screaming at a high voice, then accused cluhs at the spot run away from the iiiii "to her, her father--in--1aw made I for first aid at Yallapur and then P.W.1 and ' e#e1i~e shifted to KIMS hospital, Hubli. The e.c,o_.mp1ainant and others were treated in the hospital and Police went to the spot and by that time she was at i' V' "the spot. She showed the spot to the Investigating Officer. She identifies the 4 clubs thrown by the accused at the spot as M.Os. 1 to 4. During exainination she clarifies the nature of ass-a:t1ltv.an"cll "
words spoken by her husbandisaying, According to her, within 10 spot after hearing the cries--v.JShe i.n'terveynecl';lirstll andll later P.W.2 intervened incident happened. Except her?' came to the spot. went to the hospital ls'iym*p'1e injury on the left leg. she did not take any to her, from Yallapur to her hocise shone.' llwalkvwithin half an hour. She also to 4 clubs are available anywhere they do not have any specification.
This isithelevidence of P.Ws. l to 3 sofar as the incident
2 "in..guelstion is concerned.
,-F .-/I ' eoiri--tradict'i*on:3l b 22
16. According to the learned counseliei»..for_ the appellant, there are omissions and contradliicitionjs.__i1i:_the evidence of these 3 witnesses. Frorn;"tl1e:f~e\fi'de'ncev of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as mentioned abov.e,~ii'1 themeritirié-se.._(;feiss-- examination of all these*:3.__witne.sses, no =om.iss'ion or contradiction came to be either from the statement or EX.P.l complaint lodged by P.W..l7 trial Judge by referring compared the the tirustworthiness,_iolf,:the' evidence of P.W.l. It is well settled that _ur1les's "omissions and contradictons are bro.t%ight~ on recordmgin accordance with the procedure, .the_ defenceiicannot rely upon the said omissions or ased on the contents of the complaint.
--V Then:-.fo're,.isuch defence is not available to the defence if ._tr1'al Court ought not to have made such exercise to
-- compare the statement before police with the evidence " "of the witnesses before the Court on oath.
17. From the evidence of the 3 wit1i:esse's.i"i.t is clear that there are two routes or ways to<r_eac::}1..hoiurs.e of. the complainant, one through*'t'Ka.l1ar'am_,ane[cross and 1'. another through Nisaraga Nisaraga mane is 2 cross is about one.gfurlongnhifiaturallyiiagnyatone would prefer the route and shorter one. Therefore ..it gjisthat P.W.1 had returnedi-froin Kallaramane cross. The the appellant tried to conviiice "the evidence of Investigating Officer Pfwvs taataatag that it is about 6 km. from Saatugiaddeto Kaiiarainane cross. It is noticed that by v'.«ja__v the distance between Kallaramane cross ajidhgouse of injured was brought on record in the
-evidence" of P.W.1. Therefore, having taken that answer iV..in---the cross--examination of P.W.1, the evidence of ..._Investigating Officer is of no consequence. Even otherwise in the cross--examination itself has clarified that through Nisarga mane k.1ns. and through Kallaramane cross. furlong It is probable that the Investigatin.geififiicerlwals"ifeferifing . to the route throughgf=li_sargaA._1ri.aneffrom_fifallapur' rather than Kallaramane:'tjross. it in the absence of any ' elucidating the distance between and the actual place of iolflllsuggestion made to it is not open to the deferi_ce._toi that the distance is 2 km and not'V-onievfurlonlge' because the question is whether it wo.i§ildt'.be to hear the scream of any one from Kallaramane cross to the house of ..Satugadde. If it is one furlong from that place without obstruction like constructions etc., it is quite possible to hear the scream from a distance of one it 'furllong.
P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to the spot on hearing thefscreams of P.W.1 and saw the accused Nos. 1 P.W.1.
19. The entire evidence'.Voi"--A.A_P.iWs;" '~to:3i indicate that after the oifniaccused started assaulting Whip': and 3 arrived at the spot. possible that what was .1 regarding the incident of P.Ws.2 and 3 as they right from the beginning of there could be some variations in the evidence. of thesieiwitnesses. However there are no major:,_A---contradictionis or variations in their evidence. Sofar v:as_thea._§erson who was injured, the person who were attacking, the weapons which were used for attacking, the place of incident, the time of incident and 3"theE.-identification of the accused persons, there is fionsistency in the evidence of these 3 witnesses that when P.W.1 was returning from Yallapur, lriepp was attacked near Kallararnane cross and all Nos. 1 to 4 were present at the spot with clubs witnessed by P.W.2 V it
20. The learned 'eou..nsel for V "d_e"§ewnée bye» relying upon the reasoning..--Vofv-thep' trial"Cou:'§t tried to impress upon the regard to the filing of charge shveet in admitted by the Investigatiifig along with others went to thev'l'1o1..1se. ;a§ecu's--ed,itresspassed into the house and assaultedthe: Nos. 1 to 4 by trying to squeeze neck, th_ei'i~r1icident at 3 p.m. could not have happpenfledvp, Here}:-eseupon the wound certificates E3xs.P.4 '6p::i11.dicate that on 04.01.2000 P.Ws. 1 to 3 'Were see'r}:'i.l3j} Doctor at Yallapur Government Hospital. P.Ws*~.V1ii'and 2 were shifted to KIMS Hospital for higher treiatinent. Therefore, injuries sustained by P.Ws. 1 to 3 04.01.2000 are confirmed. Sofar as the crime Officer was trying to save. The evidence on recoryd-would also indicate that father of P.W.1 broughtV.Ayehilcl§;..laAnd then shifted them to Yallapur Hospital. It that a complaint came to be Ioidlged xiii as disclosed in the evidence of _P.Wl.'l.. and also.".P;W§'8i if
21. According. to for the defence, the Wound 'rilfldicate that the PSI. Therefore, the evidence of Police came to the hospitai.an'dTlreoorded» covmvidlaint is false, cannot be accented for that the doctor is not expectedto who assaulted, how it happened. notllipalie roving enquiry into the history of are expected to take minimum details history of the assault and the nature of injur"ies1- sustained. Even otherwise what is written in the accjident register is not reflected before us. The wound __certificate is written later looking into the contents of 30 the accident register. On the other hand evidence is otherwise that the complaint came to be recorded in the hospital. This is not denied either by P.W.1 or by"P,TW.8. On the other hand, P.W.8 the Investigating:éfficer himself admits that on receiving the infor'rnat.ion from the hospital about the incident! herein; to 't.he.Vvl1,oisip€i'[e.l and recorded the complaint of 'Ifherefore,l'3 the evidence on record it isilc1ear_that'-E§<i.'D.1:':;qas come into existence only to."ove1«fcorne'fro,ini.Crime No.4/2000. But unfortunately the..1:,riai even applying its iitoiii'theiloicc.nrrence of the incident i.e. Crime No.4/2'Q0'0_ and No.5/2000 erroneously placevdtppreliance"lon' P3x.D.1 and concluded that the :at._._3.00 p.m. in respect of Crime No.4/2000 happened. If incident at 3.00 pm. is beiieved,=d'efinitely the incident at 3.30 p.m. could not
3. 'shave happened. If the incident at 3.00 p.m. has to be iiivbelieved, in view of the evidence of the injured Witnesses 33 "P.ws. 1 to 3;'§§efiniteIy P.Ws. 1 and 3 being the 31 husband and wife would not be interested to let go the real culprits by implicating the innocent persons in a false case.
22. Though the defence tried to bring _on_i:'reicord that P.W.1 might have sustained but there is no explanation for .thfe..i.nju:=*liesVl' 'stist.air1l¢d by 2' P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.Ws. 1 to 3 halite at the same time and atlth;e"~~same placvel."v:UhVlle's's'there' was material on record were-A V-fltravelling together and they had if such defence will not helpi »I%vilo--s,z;_ie*i.Ier', the defence theory was not the samle;._VOn llotherfhand, the theory of the accused l_ tl?,"2"'1'l§ tlliief/RCOUlC1'n_Qt«'be present at Kallaramane cross at ' at 3.30p.rn, P.W.1 and others tried to .strlangt,l1leit.'e .fGanesh Narayan Hegde is falsified. We have alrea-:lly';.noticed that it would not be possible for P.W.1 fracture of both hands and leg to go and attack the father of accused Nos. 1 to 4. Therefore the trial 32 Court ignoring all the relevant facts taking into the irrelevant facts proceeded to acquit the accusedt}5e,rsons by perverse reasoning. Hence, we are constr~aéne.d0-toglset aside the judgment and order of acqufital...cifithée court.
23. Hence, appeal is The j:udg1nelntll'o--fg acquittal is set aside. Accused are guilty of offences punishable': 325 read with Section 34 IPC. a.ife_lgrievous injuries as defined Se"ction"l32'Osiof-"I'PC,flwe bring down the offence -punislh'alj§le,igur1:d'e.r'Section 326 to 325 of IPC, in View of"the cvfactllltllfiatsl:_l'1:he prosecution was not able to plasceV_iionV relco'rd____e_Vidence that the MOS. 1 to 4 clubs ' DW'ere--v.deadljfweapons. The learned Additional S.P.P. has 'ttettedfvfiscmb the judgments reported in 2005 soc [Cri.} 59ll5..8:1'1:d also ILR 2006 Karnataka 3514. Placing reliance judgment of Apex Court, we convict the accused lg%p€1"SOI1S for the offences punishable under Sections 324 Lad La.) and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly we pass the following order:
ORDER a. Appeal is allowed in part.
b. Judgment and order of p_acquittalii'_o,f tr_ial*. Court in C.C.Nos.4/2;000..,4and-_5/.i2*00'0~.._isas-it aside.
c. The accused are"'gifo11nd of offence punishable ;-u.nder..*Section's_ 324 "and"ii325 read with Sectioni'"'3*4l :1-leardw the sentence Thel._1nain'cau.s'e».for the incident in question is the lonig pe'13din§,? ilitigajgiran between the parties. The accused ' tand the~ii11jured are first cousins being children of two 0brothers':However, the prosecution is not able to place on 1'eco_rd the subsequent untoward incident after the tinicident in question between the parties. The incident happened in 2000. Therefore, in the last 10 years truce