Dwarakanatha vs State Of Karnataka By on 31 January, 2011

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dwarakanatha vs State Of Karnataka By on 31 January, 2011

IN THE men COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT LBANGALORE
DATE13 TH1S'I'HE3 3 3  {DAY 01:' JANUARY, 
BEFORE V A 3

THE Ho:N*BL.r: MR. wsjflcz B.E"'.'PEi§3{50'~:  _  "

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1f5'57;5_28:O~41{$J]::'{ C}

BPZTWEEN:

:. DWARAKANATH.A__  
SON OF SAMPATH}<;_.UMAF:AixX}--%_4 V 
AGED ABOUT 42 Y13;:x.I;<Tsq -,_  

SATHYANA.E_~1;A.)"Ab€A' V  1  :
SON OF s.¢;;\z1:»éA;TH I<_UMA~RI_A::;:';  .. 
AGED ,zfx.Br3m":j;§(§.    .

1*»)

BOTH RES'ID'EiNT'S'QF"L; Q  

DABBEGHATTA H0812:-,  

THANDAGA V}LL2\_(}EE,_ ' V . _

THURAVE,K.E3Ri3 T._AL.UK;-.  '-

a V ..APPELLANrs.
(BY SE25;fl.H,B¥LI{(;i:§AvA:x1'_& sRi;'A'§i§:.RA'L>1--1A}{RIsI»1NA, ADVS.)
AND: '

s*i.';ﬁ'ia 01? KAE2NAf}'zx1{A' BY
'rUR13V1:;~:EI2z; 1>oLs.,c12:

_"REiE5'?5;E3SE;*E'Efi'A'I"El}i} BY "PH 1::
V ._ "PU«B'I..IC .{JR0SIiCU*1*0I%.
 _   "'S1;{¥1'I«:"I:-:Is:;v}~=:..::,_(;:U:~z'r EBUILIDENG
'  _B"AT€§}:'=x--L{)f{IS.

. . RE$°01'mENT



E'I1()I1'{.hS emd {:0 pay fine of R9500/«» and ft)l}'f.h€'.f

collvictingg A2 f01' the offence pu11isha,b1c z1r1der.'S.é€.{i0V;1

326 I.P.C and sc:nte:1c:ing him to R1. for   =

"pay fine of Rs.1,000/~ wit11 dei'a;11"i."'crE2m599Q  

2. The cage of the-.__pr09ec':iti0r1Jig.v:t:h2;1f; 

24.11.1999 at about 10.00  .3;  of
T uruvekere T aluk   xxritiqu common
iIlt€1'1T.i0I1, \K7FO}f1§.ff}1}1y: .   _ .V  :S1':1dha1'ShE1I1 sen
of Krishna;   of their
 injury on CW.1. by
n1e21I1i;9 of ..arid A2 caused grievous hurt

on  C:h0pper. thereby, they are aﬁeged

t.Q_"1?;:aVé' r:0n1rriit.tt:__c}__«(;ffences punishable under Seciiions

   I_.P.C respeciively. It is further alleged

.é:gé1inst9  éixctntzised {hat on the above said place. date

 and timﬁ': in furtherance of their Common inte11ti0n, they

":0 [email protected]'I1.if,T<C?d an offence punishable: under Section 307 IPC

'by at:i',empt:ir1g to c0:"nm.'1t r1mrci.0'1" of CW. L, th€1"€b§,7, they

/-' ..



4
are Charger! for offemtes punishable under Se<:i:ior1s 341,

824, 326 ancl 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

23. The pr0sec:ui':i<:)n in order to prove t_.l--§;:  .

examined in all 10 witr1e$seS __PX?\fs.l ,gfQi 

marked clocuments Exs.P.1 to  §)rOdL1C§'d 

to 2. The defence of the a'C_éi:.,§ed ix2'2;s 0_I1°é:  -liotalﬁ'

denial.
4. However, aftef i'1ea.'1"--ingV:l;hé-fpr§js.¢cuti011 and the

accused, the 'l_é'a1_'ned"V'Se'3§§i0'i"1s{*.Judgqéf'Was pleased to

Convict" léfﬁfésaid, while acquitting
them if Elh-e  Lmder Section 30'? IPC.
T1"1€AVC'0f1Vi(.llT.i"E<?1:VaC£€11SlEi.ClY3:l3.1'€3 filed this appeal.

 Ilearci'Sﬁ"';2'X.H.Bhagavan, learned Counsel for

  €l"1eVV21:f{;~14JSedT._ §_'_. app:-3llz.m.{$ and Sri Raja Subr3.manya

  HCG? for the r€:sp0ncle1i1t State: and

 perL1Sed:'t.he me1t.eri21}s carefully.



6

};>erson who has produced the weapons, PW4 Krish.11a

Gowda has burned hostile to the pr<>seo1,1£iior1»._and

therefore, Very identﬁy of the weapons used  _

is not proved by the pI'OS€3C1,l'€li()I1,MmH€ also"'sLibtEi'i*:s'~§'h21t 

the ir1jL1ries 215 found in EX.P.7"-:are;"'a.3i c:'o.:1t;:,1S'ioi1S..._;a;1*;V(i

lacerations which could  have beet: eeuaseri byﬁ

weapon like Mo.2 whreh is   the
accused oouici not  for the offences
punishable L}n,.(:¥e,r_   So far as
offence    341 1.P.C is
oo11CevrrieTe1;e' materiai to hold that
the aee:14eedVPW.1 from moving further.

The, p.roseei4tiVon.c:aSe: si:é,1te.s that CW1 was assaulted in

 A3 "s'r.1oi.~"t= d'uratiorihof° time. Therefore, the question of

 rc.eet'ravir1ir1"g 1 does not arise in this case. Therefore,

t.11'"e.e1eV_(iz:1:ege'z?1 are e1'1ti':}ed for an order of aequitta}, so far

 tag the offence punishable under Section 341 is

 ._eo:&eer11ed,



8
case. It is suffice to ment:i.on the broad history of the

offence. He ftizther submits that. wound t:e'rt'--i'fiea1te

Ex.P.'7 contains not only the date of a.dn1Vi§s_§ioVif1-eiéexttd

dieehmtge of PW.1, but also Xeray m1'mbe.1?;   

which PW9 has given hie opinion. "'EI<~3t;_(:e-I,' he'-s':1_b'mits.

that the order of the trial Court C:or§v.i<:ting,.":{:he' 

doee not suffer from any  and
therefore, he submitS;::ti§.;1t be 

9. The ptfosecufiiolﬁi' commenced
with the  the PW}
SL1d1'1i3:1'S}T1£:tA1l1VVtttilifti at about 12 noon at the
T in the said complaint. he has

st_at;ee1 that of:---VS§_iyathsa son of Sampath Kumar was

' V15esid.ir;g~;1oeVtienan.t in the house of his brother and since

'hieb1*ot=h'e1'VA'o1=t¥§*a1nted the house to be vaeateci for their

;1ee(;'.=.s,"'3nisuz1cierstand§:r1g started between Sr:i_vatsa and

 nhti§s"~Aebr()ther. On the date of offentte, at about 1.0.00

;:1.n3_.t, while a.::t)m.i11.g back zfmm the faml, the brothers of

 E'



9
Sriv21t1'1sa by name I3W21raketnat.h_ and Sat.hyanaray21n21§

arrivecl in order to assault him and after hcaidizlg 111.111.

Sathy2m.21raya11a aesaulted him by chopper Q1: §e_f1.,

leg and on the back of his head 

[)warkanath assatlited by a  

shouider and also on 1"1is.w'-:r__ist, é1"1:(_:!"'1eft'. a.f1d '<,

back. The accused have asémtited \'tF'i'ii:{1t"}'€g"iV::t1'Ci to 21
house out of enemitiytanti hj_ave'=._cvai;tsed injuries and
therefore, he rea_uesteci'*fQifV {halting .zi,teti"c3r;;'. It is stated in

the compiaiizlét    thrown the

weapo'i";stVQ'n.  ottetiffence and ieft the place.
One Krishne GQi%v{;iat'ar3tEi»..Rameg0wda came to the scene

of Qceurrefice a..ri--ci  had taken him to the police

 s1:"ati:'c)}é";v   on receipt of this complaint

 case in Crime N0220/1999, for the

0ffe_nc§%.~paﬁaihshable under Seeticm 324 read with Section

 .34 of BBC. After investigation, a charge sheet: came to be

"" Ei1'€3'-Si for 0ffe:s3(:es ptmishable under Se<;tti0z1s 341., 324.

 V  and 30'? PC §.'€faCi wit.h Section 34 IPC.



1 O

10. After securing_; the presence of the accused
before Court, c:ha:z*ge was framed. PXVKI in the witness

box has stated as per his ctomplaitrat before_t;1f1eV"pi§}ice7

He has further stezted that at the  

accused have told that they hac}; ,.0h_ E:-ehetitf 't{hei';.~

brother and that they would c0n§1:1tt- ..n'1u.rTc1'e_;i einiti 

cut them and put him in  He' ~h2is  the V

weapons as 1\/£03.}  Which" ~-in thehhhexnds of A1
and A2 respective1yAVV_;2;t  ..'-commission of
offence.  he was treated in
Tu1*'u§feke1t*evetVGr)'vef'a»ri1v~et1é2--__Hospital. It is also in his
evidence'--tt_ht3t  Honne Gowcia and Krishne

Gcx;%gdat'~ camenear the scene of the OCC',L1.I"1'€I1Cf:3;

,q¢xt;f'ic.;tted«.: 'hi_m from the accused and thereafter,

'.*3r.1'at.<:he«:-f."L:they weapons frem the hand of the accused

 t;hre"\Xtt,}1e same on the spot. He has furt'he1* stated

2 that  order to kit} him the accused have committed

this Act. The pc3i.i.ce have recorded i'ur'ther st.atement,.



1}

He has narrated the injuries caused to him in the

further st'at:emeI1t' to the police. In t}14e..V"~::_1*e.,is.<3-

examir1at.i0n, it is st1ggest,ed t:hat t'.here.--§:_is'"'e.tje:n§:tj}* 

betwee11 himself anti the 21ect_t1,&se_d r§:g§é1'rd.i:1g""~rf1aney"'V

transaction anti also rega1'di:ig title. pfc>_p'ert.y.' .:"'e'~-I"i:u*1.i,s

suggested that Srixrathsa \}vg'1;=:....r1e*&=*er Vtmdezf  '

of his brother but he__1f1a,s  seLid'::=:p1Aggesti0n. It
is aiso denied that   employee in the
house of S1,1.v(j"-{:1:E't3f_S]'1'c3:t'L"'1VV'  in the field of
PW.1   been denied by
that the complaint was
xwittetitéyt. does not know who wrote the

e0nj1p}atnt;4"'bti1:»h.e haéfsigrled the cornplaiht. He has

  Aa;ci':;zh.'3.t,'a?,t">r,:i ».1;hatHtVhe'r'e was mistmd.ers1'.andir1g between

  'hj.niseif»--.2_iI1dSfivathsa, in e01meeti0'r1 with the house. it

ﬁe»-..4st:g__§gest§:d that it was rainy season and PWI1 had

 As1jippe£i_d;a11d fallen, which stxggestion has been denied by

'  hi3"3'1{



E2

11. PW2 Ramegowda, who is; an  witness-3., has

siialted that. 0:'; the date of effence, when PVT\f§]_r*.§;*as

walking by the band of the iake, he was   _

"she a.c:c:used. Himself, Honegoxxfgiei and"'E{ri:shf1£3g'mxrda"~

reached the spot, at that   v'11O1'e£ing<:ve_¢1

ehopper and A1 was 11o1diiEﬁ_g--..§i i.hey"v:eiiats':hC£i 

weapons and threw fthe  Hcibxvn and
had sustained injuriesttiieia  Thereafter,
PW.1 was tai;ei'i ,_ini;Q"'iEﬁ'e'  there he was
taken to ::..;i:;§£:" identified the
 accused to assauit
 $0 Ex.P.2, which is the

maha_,zaar0_f sc.f--en7e {Sf occurrence. In the cross-

 exaii1i;rfiai.i'e.n, it.VV'if§ suggested that he was; deposing

  i:i:ye_i..insi,a_:1c:e of PW.1, which suggestion is

V1.23. PW3 Ho1'111egeWda has also si.z5:.t.eC£ regardiiig'

7..¢fiE'z.e..5injury CE},LESCd by aeeus_«:e€I pereerzr-3 0r1_ PW. I. on the



'13

ciate of the offence: anci the iniurios stisiained by PWC1

due to the assauit. by A1 and A2 by means of _4et~]L}b_<'?z1.r1d

Choppfif. PW4 Krishna Gowda is sigz1::1i.o;--9;z 

sspoi: n1aha;r,ar under which the p.o.1i_(_:€ "

and 2 which are tho weapons ofoffé11'oe."~_I'n._ i:hé 

examination, it is elicited ghat. it '1:~:V ziqeritvioﬁved .11'; the'U

mahazar that Krishno  gi\}é:1:,_t'h{o§ chopper
and club to the po1icfé;V:A'  the mahazar
was read  Gowda having
chopper   Mahesh has
turmoil" {he prosecution. PW.7
  of PW.1, he has stated

that _1:);'ot14?i'<;r_  of. éyooused by name: Srivamsa was

 Ii\fi--rig:,,,ion his h.o1,i§§"é'«as the tenant. and PWK1 was given

   of the said house. They had requested

SI'~iVz1t413'\%:..v1%A f.~'t(3 vacate the house and Srivatizsa 11218

 AApror11i':ao'd to vacate the house. However, he came to

' =.vk11r.o::iv 1:.ha1: the a(:c:used flaw quarmlezd with his brother

 1.

He has §;€)I1.€';' to t.he: hospi"t:aI €£T}.{j S6811 PWA1 boizlg '~/3 E4 injured, It is sL1g,_gesi:.ed to him that the wmlnd certiﬁcate are concocted by them by nzaking 115$. Vc1{_fi;IiV1eir i1'Iﬁ'L1€I1C€ and Srivaizhsa was never in fa:-;»__:é:i_ t';enant.. PW.8 is the PSI of TL1riiVeke1'e"i'--"c:ii<:e"St;1A£i:;1ii."~ He has registered the case ii'; C'r'i..N0.'=220/"E eiiiici visited the Scene of 0Ccutfre1_1ce, seiﬁced and prepared EXPQ Spot paII1Ch;i:1iaI_I'::<1_f After_:c:0n1};)ieti()I1 of the investigation ail-q3~..,»e'ce1}3t e:}i'vV\7x5"i3.i;1vn:di certificate he has ﬂied the charge . in "this. eaeeffer the offence punishabie. In the cr0ss~ exam§1iﬁt.1o;;;{; it weapons in this case are cre-at.ed by" Section 307 is added at the instance {if vt;'he.VC:of:i_pV1'air121I1t and his brother Sampath Ku--:f12rr».in'~- 5:>1'der f.d'caL1se harm to the accused. PWJQ has ssiiaiied that on 24.11.1999 at about iE..,_3O a;rti4;..-,Ai.hai he hae examined Suc£arsha.r1 and has f011i1civ,__i'i1jmfies as per the 'WOL1I3d cemiﬁcate Ex.P,7 .i:s:5s'Li:ed by him. }1a$ 5-:~1:.atec1 that. PW. '1 had miffereci 4 _._iacere1t.ed VV('.§'L,1E1d55 and 8 (.':()f1i,£1Si€)}:1S and one abreei<)ii. $4 /'/ 15 He has further stated that as per X~ray repariz. injuries 3, 6 to 8 are gri.ev"0us in nature. He has further __stat:e<:i that he has seen Ev'IOs.1 and 2 and has st;a'i:e{{r.._iIh21t. injuries 3, 6 to 8 can be caused if one is g;',{ssaiiiteci ;":L':y 1 MO} a:1<:1 contu-sion wound Can;be..c:21usedVVby'I,MC.2, in V' the cr0ss--exami'r3at,i0r1, he has produced the X--ray report befere the.__C0;irt é'1~t"i'é:'i' eainI10t"

say who has prepared --réiy_._ ¥5\'/'.'/K-1 0/Ewas the medical officer Workinﬂgié i;_1*1 Mysore who has examined 'en V' pm. He has stated"i'iié1t...:ev}?W'riiV T uruvekere hospital with «hisi2Qry j_i:0f"eissziult by means of chopper on

24.A}.E_.199§§ fall'..ér;b<§'L1t.VA"':iO a.m. and he has found 9 ir1;5i--{ji~iz2s 0z1.&t}1e'V]§e'fs0n of PWJ. inciuding injury No.1 tlfesssed wounci, present. on the wrist. He has isggued.~ctr:fi;ific:21i:.e EX.P.8 showing that there is fI'8.(?i',l11"€ Ieiltvvejcromion, frac1::'L3re of right 4"' metaeaipai {shaft}, ii ff1*»aeturs3 of shafr, of 4?" m_ei:,ae0pai bone (left; hand} and V ..fra<tt.1.1're of seaphoid bone 0f left hzmd apart f1"C§I"I1 iiiher

2. ,/ 2* E6 11111101' ir1jur;ie.s. It 13 s11gg<:st.ed to that d()<:i.0r that Ex.P.6 is not .issz.1ed as per the medical regismr anvdv.i:f(:'h.has 11oth_iI1g to do w'1'ii}1 i:1'1e m_eciic<:> legal case rc:;;}_ji'é'i.é2.if _ hospital.

13. It is from the evirgiencé-_ 0f;'1'i.i1.cse'»Wit:i'csSé5s:...A 15:16 learned Sessions Judge has 'f€3.V1.,1l1Ci the ah(tcT'L1sci;i'«gui?:ty forf the offence mentioned ahd ..sen:f,enc_§é:d them accordingly.

14. I henfé gtarefiilly entire material.

on reLci(5i9d"a1:5:H:l ofﬂédecision of this Court in Cr1.A.v1\?0;'4¢71 M to be observed that the pr0s_e::utid;a3 i'z;.Vt.h_is"v_cé;e§e has not examined the doctor has takenvth'e"X~rays of t:h<--3 injured I3W.1, £103' the A».f(")_'3,111d in the file. Prosecution has not pI'(}dL1CC(i_ X- 'ays befere the Count.

1.5. Under the cir<::'L1msi:a'r1(tes, the case of me ' =.Vpr'--:>$e<::ut.i<)n zhaii the P\?\/"_1 has s11ffer€d grievot1s injuries 1.7 is not proved by the pmsetrtltion beyond reexeonable doubt. However, based an the evidence of it can be safely said that the 3.CC'LlS€id have ca_ti'é§'ed;..'_':aifmple _ injury" to PW.1. Though u d regarding the production of \vee1p'e:1%s poiiee, the evidence of P'27\7S;..]. to 3,1; ve:*y"'C:jea;' ti}: thewi; effect that the accused a 'Club and accused No.2 was ht)1dim_g is not probable that when the .injure:d"1ee::eiVes_ would Count the in} uries 0:' _t,he._«-rejceiptttbf injuries. It is not in c():is0Vi1&n:§:e t_i'u_"n*:a1:: héture to Cdunt the injuries 01' thelreceipt '(';f:_t'~\2§fe=21__f)'«<21j:..:5 nor to clearly observe the weapozis. hlxgtv thiés c'ase'.: PWs.2 and 3 have reached the spot.' i5rnmediat.eZj?""éii1d the evidence regarding weapons 'deed t§ye_&ti1e=aVeeused Nos.1 and 2 has not shaken in the cr0_ss«§32s:aijf:1m1ti<)n of PW 2 & 8 Though there is iapse xon of the poiice not to ment,i()1'2. the of M02 in §iX..P.2 t.h_at itself wit} I101. take the entire ease ef the .~pms;ee.t1t:i<>1':, 'XE-'hi{2}.1 (ran be I*JeIie*~sed from the evidemte df 18 PWs,1 to 3. The version na.rrat.<:d in the FIR aiso Corrobereies the case of the p:'oseu::ut,ion.. P.\?'s{'.»~};°he1s stated about: the club and ChOpp€I' and éihat the accused liave thrown th§:»VWeap<)iiS' '-2ﬁ_:v fhfi ;e:.cene"' of occurri-moo. The preseiice of R;;'1"rnc Gowcizi, Pifiisfiirie Gowda PWs.2 and 4 is rr'ie.ntio11eCiv~ in than complaint has reachgd fhfi...iii§I}:i{t€.,_V§i3iJE'i()i1:V._;;'§ E]2 noon, whereas, the incidonlnlzao at: 10 a.rn. The ciistzance to '£3111: pfiliégthe scene of OCCL1T1'€nQE' __ U "(";Vivi'CLlfI1St&1:{'1(?€3S. I am of lodging of FER in this case in the FIR that A} by Club. _fc1i1d A.'ZV_'b},rVChovpjjéf have assaulted PW} is proved . bE;:i._fCh(i',"ip'£'€3'.$CCufidiibeyond reasonable doubt. However, 'éo. "*ihr::"_joffenc:e under Section 341 is concerned, tins; Coiainigziiit. does not state that PW.'1 was pr(-zvenicd from. -m'oVi_n_g further when he irnmediately saw the " £iC(';fJS€d and ac,(:1:1s€ci fieive asseiulicd him' Therefrire, ::.>fft3'n::t:et 3;)un_i$1'iabi4:;>. ?..11'1d(;'.i' S<:c:i:ion 341 iPC has; :n.<:=t /' .

19 been made out by the }3I'()S€CL1'€,iO1.'I. '}'he;:*ef'0re, on .9. re» appreciaiiicm of the en€;ire maiierial on :'ec:<31"cL {_41<~1.(j'E~(_iT'ie'he1i. the prosecution is SE,1{§£T(3SSfL11 in bringing; he:me f1'2 :e«gij-i}i':~--.» of A1 and A2 for the 0ffen<:e p';_m.ishab_i'e"Lii"g5;¢,§'*SéCm,:ﬁ "

324 read with 34 of IPC and ::1:'e;~ef:jre;' be e0r1vic:ted and sem',en(teL§. fer thee

16. So far as the "C0r},cez:ned, the Ineidem has happe1V1e<'iV:«'§1b(3u_V1f':-.I1!"ago and accused and injured There are p0ssibi1it,)§y under the in 'the irH:e'rest ofjustice to send the &1C(!?i15_3!§§L'1 this stage. 011 the other ha.I§£ci.; Ifrim. c>xf'theV_0pi11i()n that: impositiorz. of fine amount » ;weL;id"'i;h_e ends Ofj'a1S'{,iCt3. Aceordingiy, the appeal " 'ﬁied eppeﬂants is allowed in part. The order of t:Qrivjcti(3n for the offencte punishable under Section 34"1._ I.Hl'3'.C passed agamst. A1 and A2 arld order of <§()}"1V.i(§'{,i(")I'1 for the effe1'1ce }f3m"1i.ss.}:1e1b}e u.1:1c1er Se»:':1.ienss 20 326 {PC age1iI1s.i'. A2 are hemby set: aside. A1 and A2 are c?cmvi€.:ted for the 0i'feI1c:<:-. purzishable L111der..S<;Cti011 324 read wﬁh 34 IPC and they are ser1t:er1<:c:_&Tif0 of Rs.5.000/» each in default, t<);~3ui'i"er in}pn"i;§Qﬁi1aT€nt £041"

21 period of six months. "}fhe1"'Te:1t;ir{: '»am<3i,i'i:s{."*:,Qf R_s.10,000/» if rec:ov<2re(:¥."TV_S11r.§1}1 2pe1id {éi._'v«?W--V31 compensation. The acC11sed_...3i'€_ciigfectéci«£9 déiposit the fine amount within 'f"rd1:*:'" tdday faiiing which the tria} (:ourt:"i§ dirétited: tOa§~2X6C:tt§§V'»'ihe sentence as hereinabqvaa"0fd£:.r'€d; _:

sgzu §?J§Q;GE

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Dwarakanatha vs State Of Karnataka By on 31 January, 2011