Karnataka High Court
Sri Renu Gopal Krishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2018
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1083 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI RENU GOPAL KRISHNA
SON OF LATE SRI RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HADALI POLICE,
DAVANAGERE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI H.M.CHANDRAIAH,
SON OF GURULINGAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
2
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT VEDERAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDENT OF DEVARJ URS BADAVANE,
H.N.NO.32 OF 1, 3RD CROSS,
BEHIND NEW COURT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
3. SMT.SUDHA
WIFE OF H.M.CHANDRAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDENT OF DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE,
H.N.NO.32 OF 1, 3RD CROSS,
BEHIND NEW COURT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
4. SRI VEERESH
SON OF H.M.CHANDRAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDENT OF DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE,
H.N.NO.32 OF 1, 3RD CROSS,
BEHIND NEW COURT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
5. SRI RUDRESH
SON OF H.M.CHANDRAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDENT OF DEVARAJ URS BADAVANE,
H.N.NO.32 OF 1, 3RD CROSS,
3
BEHIND NEW COURT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 006. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)
CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 372
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
ORDER DATED 03.11.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN
S.C.NO.20 OF 2016 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDETS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION-114 READ WITH SECTION 302 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE.
*****
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA . J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned S.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments in support of I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018, as well as on the merits of the appeal. We have heard the submission made in detail.
4
3. The appellant is the complainant. He has challenged the impugned judgment passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, dated 03.11.2017, in Sessions Case No.20 of 2016, whereby the respondents / accused Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Section-114, read with Section-302 of IPC.
4. The sole ground on which the respondents / accused Nos.2 to 5 were implicated in the alleged offence is that they assisted and abetted with accused No.1 in causing the death of the deceased. The trial court while negativing the charge, at para-38 of the impugned judgment, has observed as under:
"38. I have carefully gone through the allegations in the complaint, the complainant in his complaint alleged that, accused Nos.2 to 5 have abetted to accused No.1. But in the complaint nowhere he has alleged that accused No.2 to 5 were also came to the incident spot. As per the prosecution case accused No.1 has 5 brought accused No.2 to 5 near the cattle shed of deceased Ramarao, but PW-7 and 8 who are the eyewitnesses in their evidence nowhere stated that accused No.2 and 5 were present at the incident spot. As per their evidence accused No.2 to 5 were standing in front of their house. The PW-7 deposed that the house of accused is at a distance of about 250 feet from the incident spot. The PW-8 nowhere state what was the distance between incident spot and house of accused. Both the witnesses in their evidence deposed that when accused No.1 has assaulted Ramarao, they were working in the cattle shed, under such circumstances it is very difficult to believe that these two witnesses have heard that accused No.2 to 5 were abetted to accused No.1 to commit murder of Ramarao. Under such circumstances I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW-7 and 8 is not sufficed to hold that accused No.2 to 5 have abetted accused No.1 to murder Ramarao. The other witnesses are the hearsay witnesses, even there is no specific and acceptable evidence what was the distance between incident spot and farm house 6 of accused. The accused No.3 is a lady, it is come in the evidence that the accused are residing at Davanagere, under such circumstances it is very difficult to believe that on that day in the early morning at about 7.00 a.m., accused No.2 to 5 were went to the said place. Considering the evidence available on record, I hold that there is no sufficient cogent and convincing evidence to hold that accused No.2 to 5 have abetted accused No.1 to murder Ramarao."
5. On going through the impugned judgment, we find that the charge under Sections-201 and 302 of IPC was proved only against accused No.1. The specific case of the prosecution is that there was rivalry between accused No.1 and the deceased. In that background, on 08.11.2013 at about 7.00 a.m., when the deceased was milking the cow in front of the cattle shed, accused No.1 came from behind and assaulted the deceased on the back of his head, with a chopper causing his instantaneous death. The charge against the present respondent Nos.2 to 7 5 is framed under Section-114, read with Section-302 of IPC. The charge reads as follows:
"3. Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt prove that, on the above said date, time and place, accused Nos.2 to 5 were instigated or provoked or abetted accused No.1 to commit murder of Ramarao thereby they have committed an offence punishable under Section-114, read with Section-302 of IPC?"
6. Even though it is alleged that there was instigation, provocation or abetment by respondent Nos.2 to 5, the prosecution did not allege any specific overtacts or ingredients making out either instigation, provocation or abetment. The only allegation made against respondent Nos.2 to 5 is that they were found near the spot of occurrence. The prosecution has failed to garner any evidence in proof of this fact.
7. Secondly, the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution namely PWs-7 and 8 have unequivocally 8 stated that during the incident, respondent Nos.2 to 5 were standing in front of their house. It is noticed that the spot of occurrence and the house of respondent Nos.2 and 5 is situated at the distance of 250 feet away from the spot of incident. Under the said circumstances, the trial court was justified in acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 5 of the offence punishable under Section-114, read with Section-302 of IPC.
8. Further, this appeal is against an order of acquittal. The material on record does not give rise to a different view. We do not find any material to substantiate the guilt for the offence punishable under Section-114, read with Section-302 of IPC, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. Therefore, the appeal is not fit for admission. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
9
9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018, does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands rejected.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE
JJ