Karnataka High Court
State By Tavarekere Police Station vs Narasimhaiah on 28 January, 2014
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.851/2008
C/W.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.852/2008
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.851/2008
BETWEEN :
State,
By Tavarekere
Police Station. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.K.R.Keshavamurthy, Addl. SPP)
AND :
1. Narasimhaiah,
S/o.Kodirangappa,
Aged 68 years,
2. Rangganna,
S/o.Puttarangamma,
2
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
3. R.K.Nagaraja,
S/o.Kadarappa,
4. Srimanthari,
S/o.Sannarangappa,
Aged 30 years,
5. R.D.Ugrappa,
S/o.Rangappa,
Aged 55 years,
Respondents to 1 to 5/
Accused Nos.50 and 52 to 55
are r/o.K.Rangannahally village,
Sira Taluk. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.Shankarchar, Adv.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C.,
by the SPP praying to grant leave to appeal against the
Judgement and Order of acquittal dt.7.3.2008 in
S.C.No.189/2005 on the file of the III Addl. District and
Sessions Judge (Special Court), Tumkur, acquitting the
respondents for the offence p/u/s.144, 148 and 324
r/w.Sec.149 of IPC & set aside the aforesaid Judgment &
convict and sentence the accused/respondents.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.852/2008
BETWEEN:
State,
By Tavarekere
Police Station. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.K.R.Keshavamurthy, Addl. SPP)
3
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
AND:
1. K.Doddaiah,
S/o.Katappa,
52 years,
2. Narayanappa,
S/o.Karegowda,
55 years,
3. Boregowda,
S/o.Karegowda,
55 years,
4. Hemaraja,
S/o.Hotte Bhuthanna,
47 years,
5. Balaramaiah,
S/o.Hotte Bhuthanna,
55 years,
6. Manjunatha,
S/o.Hotte Bhuthanna,
56 years,
7. Erkyathappa,
S/o.Hotte Bhuthanna,
39 years,
8. Devajjire Ramanna,
S/o.Rangappa,
57 years,
9. Devajjire Thammanna,
S/o.Rangappa,
35 years,
4
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
10. Krishnamurthy,
S/o.Ramakrishnappa,
42 years,
11. Rajanna,
S/o.Ramakrishnappa,
37 years,
12. Ranganna @ Ranganatha,
S/o.Devijjira Puttarangappa,
42 years,
13. Srinivasa,
S/o.Devijjira Puttarangappa,
37 years,
14. Srirama,
S/o.Devijjira Puttarangappa,
37 years,
15. Bhuthanna,
S/o.Rangappa @ Donappa,
52 years,
16. Sreeramaiah,
S/o.Devijjira Puttarangappa,
67 years,
17. Srinivasa,
S/o.Sriramaiah,
32 years,
18. Venkatesh,
S/o.Sriramaiah,
29 years,
5
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
19. Lakshmaiah,
S/o.Tarappa,
31 years,
20. Bhuthesh,
S/o.Gopalappa,
27 years,
21. Ranganatha @ Rangappa,
S/o.Gopalappa,
34 years,
22. Bhuthanna,
S/o.Puttarangappa,
62 years,
23. Bhuthesh,
S/o.Bhuthanna,
32 years,
24. R.P.Lakshmaiah,
S/o.Puttarangappa,
52 years,
25. Bhuthesh,
S/o.R.P.Lakshmaiah,
32 years,
26. Kariyanna,
S/o.Puttarangappa,
57 years,
27. R.K.Bhutesh,
S/o.Kariyanna,
32 years,
6
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
28. Puttaiah,
S/o.Puttarangappa,
57 years,
29. Puttarangappa,
S/o.Balenorabhuthanna,
57 years,
30. R.P.Rajanna,
S/o.Puttaranganna,
43 years,
31. R.P.Krishnamurthy
@ Murthy,
S/o.Puttarangappa,
Aged 40 years,
32. R.P.Manjunath,
S/o.Puttarangappa,
32 years,
33. Ranganatha,
S/o.Balenora Bhuthanna,
47 years,
34. Lakshmaiah,
S/o.Balenora Bhuthanna,
47 years,
35. Junjanna,
S/o.Ningenora Bhuthanna,
57 years,
36. Bhuthana,
S/o.Odappa @ Odanna,
29 years,
7
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
37. Ramakrishnappa,
S/o.Hanumanthappa,
42 years,
38. Angadiyavera Govindappa,
S/o.Hanumanthappa,
47 years,
39. Gangatharappa,
S/o.Hanumanthappa,
52 years,
40. Bhuthaiah,
S/o.Rangegowda,
60 years,
41. Karerangappa,
S/o.Ragegowda,
60 years,
42. Naganna,
S/o.Sannajjira Rangappa,
42 years,
43. Ranganatha,
S/o.Sannajjira Rangappa,
40 years,
44. Ramalingaiah,
S/o.Ramanna,
41 years,
45. Rangaswamy
@ Ranganatha,
S/o.Doddenora Parasanna,
32 years,
8
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
46. Kariyanna,
S/o.Balenoru Bhuthanna,
52 years,
47. Prakash,
S/o.Kariyanna,
27 years,
All are residents of
K.Ranganahalli,
Sira Taluk. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.K.R.Ramesh, Adv. For R-1 to 3, 7, 11, 15, 21 to 28,
32 to 37, 39 to 41 and 43 to 47,
Sri.S.Shankarachar, Adv. For R-4 to 6, 10, 11, 13, 14,
17 to 21, 23, 31 and 42)
This Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.378(1) & (3) of
Cr.P.C., by the SPP praying to grant leave to file an appeal
against the Judgement & Order of acquittal dt.7.3.2008
passed by the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (Special
Court), Tumkur, in Spl. Case No.307/2001, acquitting the
respondents/accused for the offences p/u/s.143, 148, 307,
323, 324, 427 of IPC & u/s.3(1)(X) of the SC and ST (POA)
Act, 1989 r/w.Sec.149 of IPC.
These Criminal Appeals coming on for hearing, this
day, Dr.Bhakthavatsala, J, delivered the following:
9
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
JUDGMENT
These two appeals filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., are directed against the common Judgment dated 07.03.2008 made in Special Case No.307/2001 and SC No.189/2005 on the file of Special Court/ Addl. Sessions Judge, at Tumkur.
2. Respondents 1 to 5 in Criminal Appeal No.851/2008 are hereinafter referred to as 'Accused Nos.50, 52, 53, 54 and 55', respectively; Whereas the Respondents 1 to 47 in Criminal Appeal No.852/2008 are hereinafter referred to as 'Accused Nos.1 to 9, 11 to 44, 46 to 49', respectively, as arraigned in the special case/Sessions case.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeals may be stated as under:
The accused in both the appeals are residents of one and the same village, viz., K.Ranganahalli village, Sira 10 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 Taluk. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.02.2000 at about 9.00 a.m., accused who are residents of K.Ranganahalli formed unlawful assembly, armed with weapons like chopper, club and stones with the common object of assaulting R.K.Sadanandegowda. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 31 chased P.W.2/Ramesh and felled him down on the road near the house of R.H.Bhutesh. Accused No.1 also assaulted P.W.2 with chopper on his right thigh; Accused No.2 assaulted P.W.2 on his head with a club; Accused No.4 assaulted on P.W.2 on his left thigh; Accused No.31 assaulted P.W.2 on the left side of chest with chopper and thus, attempted to kill him. When P.W.2's father (viz., C.W.1/R.H.Bhutesh) came to the rescue of P.W.2, the accused attempted to kill him (C.W.1). They abused them in a filthy language. The accused also assaulted P.W.4/Lakshmikanthamma, P.W.5/Shyla, P.W.6/Naveen, P.W.7/Maruthi, P.W.8/Sadanandegowda and P.W.9/ R.B. Chandrakumara. C.W.1/Bhutesh lodged a complaint with Tavarekere Police Station. It was registered in Crime 11 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 No.33/2000 against Accused No.1 and 48 others for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the investigation was over, chargesheet came to be laid against the accused for the above said offences. Accused Nos.1 to 49 faced trial before the Special Court in Special Case No.307/1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148, 323, 324, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Whereas Accused Nos.50 to 55 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 read with Section 149 of IPC in Sessions Case No.189/2005 on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, at Tumkur (who is also Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989). The Trial Court has recorded common evidence in 12 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 both the cases. In support of the case of the prosecution, it has got examined as many as 21 witnesses, got marked 25 documents and got exhibited M.Os.1 to 34. After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused have not adduced any defence evidence. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments, perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the charges levelled against the accused and recorded an Order of acquittal in favour of the accused in both the cases. This is impugned in these two appeals.
4. Learned Addl. SPP submits that the Order of acquittal recorded against the Accused Nos.1 to 49 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 13 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 1989, does not call for interference, but all the accused except the accused who are dead, should have been convicted for the charges under IPC levelled against them. He submits that the injured eye-witness, viz., P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 have deposed about the overt-act by each of the accused. He submitted that the motive for the accused to commit the offences alleged against the accused was that P.W.8 was supporting Bhutesh and one Shivanna in a Village Panchayath Election. Whereas Accused No.2 was supporting one Rangappa, but the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that independent witnesses were not examined and there are serious discrepancies, omissions and inherent improbabilities in the evidence of prosecution.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ accused submits that the Trial Court has rightly recorded an Order of acquittal in favour of the accused and the 14 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 same does not call for interference.
6. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned Judgment rendered in Special Case No.307/2001 and S.C.No.189/2005 on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Court, at Tumkur, call for our interference?"
7. Our answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
At the very outset, it must be mentioned that there was a group clash between P.W.8 on one side and the Accused No.2 on the other. The complaint was filed by C.W.1-Bhutesh. He died prior to his examination in the case. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against 55 persons. All the accused as well as the injured 15 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 witnesses are residents of the same village. Out of the 55 accused persons, Accused Nos.10, 45 and 51 are dead. It is pertinent to mention that Accused Nos.2 and 3 are brothers. Accused Nos.4 to 7 are children of one Hotte Bhuthanna. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are the children of one Rangappa. Accused Nos.10 and 11 are the children of one Ramakrishnappa. Likewise, many of the accused are inter-
related to each other and one another have been implicated in this case. The ingredients of Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not proved in evidence. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in recording an Order of acquittal in favour of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is the case of the prosecution none of the accused sustained injuries in the alleged group clash. It is common knowledge that when there is a group clash, people on both side wound sustain injuries. But in the instant case, the case of the 16 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 prosecution is only prosecution witnesses sustained injuries and not the accused. P.Ws.12 to 19 have not supported the case of prosecution. Keeping in view that the group- clash is on account of election rivalry between two groups, the evidence of prosecution cannot be accepted unless corroborated by independent witnesses. There is no independent witness to support the case of prosecution.
In Para No.26 of the impugned Judgment, the Trial Court while referring to the decision reported in NAGARAJITH v/s. STATE OF BIHAR (2005 CRIMES 191 SC), has observed that where the evidence on record establishes the fact that a large number of persons were present, it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom an overt act is alleged with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, lest some innocent spectators may get involved. According to P.W.2/Ramesh.R.B, Bhutesh who contested the election was very much present at the time of incident. But he has not been cited as a witness. In this 17 CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08 regard, the Trial Court has relied upon the decision reported in BASAPPA v/s. ST. (ILR 1995 KAR 2226) on the point that in the absence of examination of vital witnesses, the prosecution must fail and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The Trial Court has further observed that where all the material witnesses are either related or otherwise interested, their testimony has to pass through the test of close and severe scrutiny before it could be safely acted upon and in the absence of corroboration to the material extent or in all material particulars, it is extremely hazardous to convict the accused on the basis of the testimony of interested, inimical and partisan witnesses, particularly when it bristles with improbable versions and material infirmities. In our view, the Trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence placed on record by the prosecution, has rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and therefore, recorded an Order of acquittal. We see no good ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 18
CRL.A.No.851/08 c/w.CRL.A.No.852/08
8. In the result, we pass the following Order:
Appeals fail and they are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*