Karnataka High Court
State By Koppa Police vs M.P. Ganesha And Ors. on 7 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ2510, 2002(3)KARLJ570
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate who represents respondents 1 to 4.
2. The principal ground on which the learned State Public Prosecutor has assailed the order of acquittal is that this is a case in which there are as many as 5 witnesses who deposed to the assault in question out of whom two, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are injured and despite this, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused only on the ground of the inter se infirmities or inconsistencies. The submission that is canvassed is that the incident was of a short duration, that the parties knew each other, that they are virtually related, that unfortunately due to some dispute the incident took place and that there is therefore no question of mistaken identity etc. Consequently, what he submits is that even if the Court were to take a relatively lenient view for the aforesaid reasons that the order of acquittal is technically incorrect.
3. Learned Advocate who represents the accused has very strongly supported the judgment. His submission is that the evidence of P.W. 1 who claims to have been seriously injured is to the effect that he was not hospitalised and that he did not take any treatment in the hospital. What is pointed out is that the medical evidence runs contrary to his evidence and this ground alone is sufficient to destroy the whole of the prosecution case. We do concede that there is some difficulty with regard to the evidence of P.W. 1 but this is not all insofar as there is sufficient evidence from P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 and if one were to brush aside the infirmities which are not of a very serious nature the prosecution evidence does establish that the accused were involved in the assault and that the P.Ws. 1 and 2 were injured. Under these circumstances, despite the fact that respondents' learned Advocate did vehemently submit that this is not a case that calls for interference, we need to take note of the fact that where injuries have occurred and the case has resulted in a State prosecution that a wrong order of acquittal is against the canons of justice. Times without number, this Court has had to point out to the Trial Courts that if the incident is not very serious or if there are factors which in the mind of the Court would qualify for a very liberal or lenient view that this can always be considered but that the recording of an unjustified order of acquittal in a case particularly where injuries have occurred or losses have resulted, virtually compounds the injustice. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with this aspect of the law on more than one occasion and has laid down very clearly that where the State is the prosecuting party in criminal cases that the State is virtually taking over the responsibility of ensuring that the guilty persons are punished and in those of the cases where it is possible in further ensuring that the aggrieved or injured persons are adequately compensated. Wherever sympathetic attitude is displayed towards the accused and the Courts virtually bend over backwards to acquit them on all sorts of frivolous and unsustainable grounds the end result is that there is a total failure of justice because the aggrieved party gets no redressal or compensation and the guilty party goes scott-free which is not in consonance with the concept of doing full justice. This is one of the reasons why this Court has been required to interfere in thousands of cases where acquittals are unjustified. This is one such case. It is very disturbing that this Court is required to interfere in as many as 93% of the acquittal orders. May we politely remind the Trial Courts that unjustified acquittals are disturbing because they raise serious doubts regarding why this has happened. More importantly the failure of every prosecution for violent offences undermines the law and order situation, demoralises the prosecuting agencies and encourages criminal activity. The Courts owe it to society to ensure that crime and violence will not go unpunished and that the consequences will be serious; society legitimately expects this from the Courts and there can be no let downs. Consequently, while accepting the evidence we set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. At the same time, we take note of everything that their learned Advocate has pointed out to us, viz., the fact that the incident is an old one, that there was some background to the same, that the parties are neighbours, that they are related to each other and above all, that it was on the spur of the movement that something happened. In view of these considerations we direct that the accused shall undergo imprisonment for whatever period they have undergone and that they shall pay a fine quantified at Rs. 500/- each. They are granted 3 months time to deposit the fine amount in the Trial Court. If there is default in depositing the same the Trial Court to recover the amounts from the accused. After recovery of the said amount notice to be issued to P.Ws. 1 and 2. The Trial Court to pay a sum of Rs. 1,5007- to P.W. 2 and a sum of Rs. 500A to P.W. 1 as and by way of compensation. The appeal which partially succeeds to stand disposed off. Registrar General to circulate a copy of the judgment to all the District Judges who shall in turn bring it to the notice of all Courts handling criminal cases.