Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Chowdappa @ Chowdegowda S/O Anjanappa on 11 February, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1148/2007
BETWEEN
State of Karnataka
By Koramangala P.S.
Bangalore. ...Appellant
(By Sri.Sampangi Ramaiah, HCGP)
AND:
Chowdappa @ Chowdegowda
S/o. Anjanappa, 25 years
Ibbalur Grama, Sarjapura Road
Bangalore.
... Respondent
(By M/s. Indo Legal Inc., Advs.,)
This Crl.A. is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3)
Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal against
the judgment dtd. 30.10.2006 in C.C.No.18989/2003
on the file of the VI Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, acquitting
the respondent/accused for the offence P/U/S.326 of
IPC.
2
This Crl.A. coming on for hearing this day,
K.L.Manjunath J., delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The State has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore, in C.C.No.18989/2003 dated 30th October, 2006.
2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.2- Chandrappa before PW.1 - M.Nanjaiah as per Ex.P.1, a case came to be registered for the offence under section 326 IPC against the respondent. Thereafter on completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and the respondent was tried for the said offence i.e.326 IPC.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant - PW.2 - Chandrappa and the accused are co-brothers. The complainant has married the elder sister of the wife of the accused. The relationship between the complainant and his wife was not cordial 3 and that his wife was staying away from him in the house of his father-in-law Appanna Gowda at Ibbalur village. On 28.8.2003 when the complainant went to the house of his father-in-law, the accused, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with a sickle, which resulted in grievous injury to his left palm. He was admitted to a private nursing home and thereafter, his statement was recorded by PW.1 - H.C.No.565 as per Ex.P.1 and the same was registered in Crime No.614/2003 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Based on Ex.P.1, the case was investigated and charge sheet was filed.
4. The respondent pleaded not guilty, but claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MO.1.
6. The respondent denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him found in the evidence of 4 PWs.1 to 5 while answering the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
7. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and considering the entire evidence let in by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, he was acquitted under Section 326 of Cr.P.C. This judgment is called in question in this appeal.
8. Mr.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 - wound certificate. According to him, if the Magistrate had appreciated the evidence properly, the respondent would not have been acquitted for the aforesaid offence. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to re- appreciate the entire evidence.
5
9. Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, what is to be considered by this Court in this appeal is:-
"Whether the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Magistrate is perverse or reasonable and whether the judgment of acquittal requires to be interfered with?"
10. It is not in dispute that the incident said to have taken place at about 1.30 p.m. on 28.10.2003 in the house of Appanna Gowda - father-in-law of the complainant. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. As per the complaint, when the incident took place, the complainant's wife was present. She is the only eyewitness. PW.5 - Ravi came to the spot later and shifted the complainant to the hospital for treatment. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the wife of the complainant has not been examined. Even otherwise, the evidence of PW.5 has no relevance to prove the incident, because he was not present in the house when the incident took place. In order to link the 6 injury caused to the complainant for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor, who treated the complainant - PW.2, on the contrary, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P.5 -wound certificate.
11. A perusal of Ex.P.5 -wound certificate reveals that for the reasons best known to the Doctor, he has not mentioned the nature of injury sustained by the complainant - PW.2. On perusal of Ex.P.5, it discloses that the complainant has undergone debridement, repair of tendon and an operation was conducted on 28.10.2003, but what was the nature of injuries has not been mentioned by the medical Officer and it further discloses that there was only a lacerated injury on the left palm. If the doctor had been examined, this Court could have considered Ex.P.5. Since he has not been examined and the eyewitness i.e. the wife of the complainant - PW.2, has not been examined this Court cannot find fault with the appreciation of the evidence 7 by the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SA