Karnataka High Court
Siddappa Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.203/2007
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDAPPA REDDY
S/O SIOTARAMA REDDY
AGED 48 YEARS
2. THIPPESWAMY
S/O CHANDRA REDDY
AGED 45 YEARS
3. ANANDAPPA D R
S/O B RANGAPPA
AGED 24 YEARS
APPL. NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/O TALAVATTI
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
4. HARISHA
S/O THIPPEERAIAH, 22 YEARS
R/O GULLALU GOLLARAHATTY
HIRIYUR TAUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY AIMANGALA POLICE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(3) CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2007, PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
CHITRADURGA, IN S.C.NO.48/2006 & 59/2006 - CONVICTING
THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353 & 332 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused no.1 to 3 and 5) and accused no.4 and 6 to 11 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 353, 332, 333 and 504 r/w 149 IPC.
2. The learned trial judge convicted accused no.1 to 3 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused no.5 for an offence punishable under Section 333 IPC and acquitted the rest of accused for aforestated offences. Therefore, accused no.1 to 3 and 5 are before this court.
3. I have heard Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for the State. 3
4. Accused no.1 to 3 and 5 are alleged to have assaulted and caused simple and grievous injuries to PW.4-Marulasiddappa and PW.5-B.S.Zabiulla (Police Constables) when they were on APMC Election duty in Barampura village, within the jurisdictions of Aimangala Police Station.
5. The State has not preferred appeal against acquittal of the rest of accused.
6. Therefore, following points would arise for determination :-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 to 3 and 5 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.5-
B.S.Zabiulla (Police Constable of Aimangala Police Station) to deter him from discharging his duties as a public servant when he was on APMC Election duty in Barampura village on 29.05.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 IPC ?
4
2) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no.5 assaulted PW.4-Marulasiddappa (Head Constable of Aimangala Police Station) and caused grievous hurt to deter him from discharging his duties as public servant when he was on APMC Election duty in Barampura village on 29.05.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 333 IPC ?
3) Whether the learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record ?
4) To what order ?
7. The injured witnesses namely PW.4-Marulasiddappa and PW.5-B.S.Zabiulla were working as Head Constable and Police Constable of Aimangala Police Station respectively. On 29.05.2005, they were posted for Election duty in connection with Elections held for APMC of Barampur. Accused no.1 to 3 and 5 and other persons trespassed the election booth alleging that proxy voting was going on. When PW's.4 and 5 tried to prevent them from entering the election 5 booth, accused no.1 to 3 and 5 assaulted PW's.4 and 5 and caused grievous injuries to PW.4 and simple injury to PW.5.
8. PW.4 has deposed; that on the date of incident, PW's.4 and 5 were on APMC Election duty; PW's.4 and 5 had reached Barampura village on 28.05.2005; they stayed in Barampura village during the night of 28.05.2005; the APMC election was started at 8.00 a.m., on 29.05.2005; PW's.4 and 5 were on Bandobust duty; on that day, at about 3.00 p.m., accused no.1 and 2 and others came near the election booth and told that proxy voting was going on; they trespassed the election booth and spilled water; PW's.4 and 5 tried to prevent the accused; accused no.1-Siddappa Reddy, accused no.2-Thippeswamy assaulted him with stones and accused no.5-Harisha assaulted him with a club;
PW.4 has identified accused no.1, 2 and 5 before the court. The first information of the incident was lodged by PW.4 with Aimangala Police Station.
During cross-examination, apart from putting suggestions denying the version stated in examination-in- 6 chief, nothing is elicited to discredit the evidence of PW.4. PW.4 has denied the suggestion that he had suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident. PW.4 has denied a suggestion that he was instigated by some politicians to implicate the accused.
9. PW.1-Dr.Mahalingappa had examined PW.4- Marulasiddappa in General Hospital at Hiriyur at about 3.20 p.m., on 29.05.2005. PW.4 had suffered following injuries:-
1) Lacerated injury measuring 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the head
2) Contusion measuring 6 cm x 2 cm on the left wrist joint
3) Contusion measuring 4 cm x 1 cm on the right shoulder
4) Contusion on the left wrist joint PW.4 was referred to District Hospital at Chitradurga as injury no.1 was grievous in nature.
10. PW.3-Dr.Sathish has deposed; that on 29.05.2005 PW.4-Marulasiddappa had been referred to District Hospital 7 at Chitradurga. The X-rays taken revealed the fracture of left metacarpal bone and PW.4 was treated for the fracture.
From the medical evidence, it is proved that PW.4 had suffered grievous injuries.
PW.4 has deposed; that accused no.5-Harish assaulted him wit a club and caused fractures. The evidence of PW.4 finds corroboration from the contents of first information and also from the evidence of PW.5-Zabiulla.
11. PW.5-Zabiulla has deposed; that at the time of incident, PW.4 and PW.5 were on election duty; accused no.1 to 3 assaulted him with stones and clubs and caused injuries to deter him from discharging his duties as public servant. PW.5 was treated in Government Hospital at Aimangala.
12. PW.2-Dr.Mallappa has deposed; on 30.05.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., he examined PW.5 in General Hospital at Aimangala.
8
PW.5 had suffered following injuries:
1) Contusion measuring 3 cm x 3 cm on the right foot
2) Contusion measuring 3 cm x 3 cm on the forehead PW.2 has deposed; that the injuries could be caused due to assault with clubs and stones.
Thus, we find that evidence of PW.5 finds corroboration from the medical evidence.
13. The private witnesses namely PW.6-Basavaraja, PW.7-Mallaiah, PW.8-Eswarappa and PW.9-Kanumaiah have not supported the case of prosecution. The Election Officers namely PW.10-Parameshwarappa and PW.11-Durgaraju have not completely supported the case of prosecution however, their evidence that there was an incident of assault and obstruction to the process of election by a mob of persons would lend corroboration to the evidence of injured witnesses. PW's.10 and 11 having seen the police constables who had suffered injuries were hiding in a room. In the circumstances, they were not able to identify the assailants. 9 Therefore, the defence cannot be permitted to rely upon the evidence of PW.10 and 11 to discredit the evidence of injured witnesses namely PW's.4 and 5.
14. PW.12-Manjunathaiah has deposed; when PW's.4 and 5 were on election duty on the date of election viz., on 29.05.2005, at about 3.00 p.m., some persons entered the polling booth and spilled water. When PW.4 tried to prevent them from entering the election booth, he was assaulted by some persons. PW.12 got scared and he was hiding in a room.
15. The evidence of PW.13 is more or less similar to the evidence of PW.12.
Thus, we find that evidence of injured witnesses namely PW's.4 and 5 is consistent and credible.
16. The learned counsel for accused would submit that there is no proper identification of accused and the evidence of injured witnesses does not find corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. The learned trial judge 10 had not invoked Section 149 IPC. Therefore, the learned trial judge should not have convicted Accused no.1 to 3 and 5.
17. The evidence of identification of accused no.1 to 3 and 5 by PW's.4 and 5 before the trial court has not been controverted. The incident of assault had taken place in a broad day light. There was no identification crisis.
At this juncture, it is necessary to state that incident of assault had taken place near the election booth. It is obvious that the crowd included voters and on lookers. In the circumstances, the learned trial judge has rightly refused to invoke Section 149 IPC.
19. Thus, on reappreciation of evidence, I find that accused no.1 to 3 had voluntarily caused hurt to PW.5 to deter him from discharging his duties as public servant. Accused no.5 had caused grievous injury to PW.4 to deter him from discharging his duties as public servant and committed offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 IPC.
11
The learned Sessions Judge having convicted accused no.1 to 3 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 IPC, should not have passed separate sentence for an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, because offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 IPC are aggravated forms of an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. There are no reasons to interfere with the rest of the impugned judgment.
20. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified.
The conviction of accused no.1 to 3 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 IPC is confirmed.
The conviction of accused no.5 for an offence punishable under Section 333 IPC is confirmed.
The sentence imposed on accused no.1 to 3 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 IPC is 12 confirmed. The sentence imposed for an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC is set aside.
Sd/-
Np/- JUDGE