Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka By Honavar Police vs Narayan Subbayya Naik on 29 May, 2008
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH Comm' 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGA§;{.3_§§*.E'»fi_vV
DATED THIS THE zcrrfi DAY 05* MAY
PRESENT
"ms 1-xownnm ma. JH§'i-'ICE m; .
mm Hozrnu: an.'
CRIMINAL APPEAL 525.2321 fi(§!f3jVL.'*V{A)
BETWEEN:
1 THE £jJ>é*"--:<A réT§§tVA9g*£;;<.A«"g
3Y%H_oh:AvAa_?<:1,tcE «
. H Q ...ApPm,AN'r.
(By sri§'%armm K;"§§&§R~!;iii£§:iATH. GOVERNMENT
?LEADER'*a_ X 4
Arm "
---»---»--'-.1-
' ,1' " Mate-M.A'I~:..s1IRRAwA NAIR"
'i~'.!A.;i{)'i2_,j'~.__..~
"1.%'R/<3--:'§§Af3u,
MMEINEE-HONAVAR
gr'r'.rA.RA KAHNADA I)iS'I"f?1C'I'.
GAJANAN NARYANA Mm
_ §A(":~F:: 20 YRS,
Rm IKANI,
MAHIME-HONAVAR
UTTARA KANNADA DIS'f'RiCF.
3 LAXMAN HONNA NARC
AGE: 45 YRS,
R/O IKANL
MAHIME-HONAVAR
i_ITTARA KANHADA DIS'I*RlC'l'..
fx)
4 awevm HONNA mm:
AGE: 48 YRS,
R/O IKANI, I _
MAHIMEHONAVAR * ._
I_f'I"!'ARA KANNADA nisralcr. .
5 MADEV HONNA NAIK.
AGE: 51 YRS, "
R/GIKANL
MAHIME-HONAVA-R ,
UTTARA KANNAL:.A'j%£>;srm;<:rr." '
6 MAI-{FISH MADHAV.A_NAIK ' "
RIO V . ._
MAHI.N£.'£:-<Ht3£Ja§VA1£...__ _
!_I1TA;?A-K&NNAEsA ms%jRicrr;;
7 £IANLIh&.%;NT_H'lSUBI:%AVYY_A_--NAIK
mm; 36 YES,-~ ' '-
R/-O IKANI, *
MAH'mE+VH0NAvAR._'..'%~
_t_;1'rARA g<_A:s1NA:::A D!S'I'R!C'I'.
" '~ 3 - 'inrmnvgre s1Ir§'r;AvvA@s:mR:; NAIK
AGE; 41"~YRS,
_ '*.R;'Q E:A"LKUR,
%:10:\i;ywA;fe"TALuK
' _. * RESPONDENTS
% 7,_(By. ugzitths : ASHOK N NAYAK AND 81?! A. MAHESH, e .AT3Vs-, I T. ~C.RL.a. IS FILED U/S. 373(1) .5; (3) r;R.P.¢f:. £21' THE "--__"*SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HUMBLE mzrm MAY are F'LEASF'J) To mezw'r uzmw: T0 FILFI AN KAPPEAL AGAINST' THE .JUI)GMEN'I' mt 27.1o,2t)m " PAS'-BEE} BY THE PRL. JMFCL, HONAVAR IN c:.c:.m. 301:3/99, ACQUFITING THE RESPONDEN'i"S--AC!CUSED FOR mp: OFF'F3N('2F£~3 PIINISHARLFZ ms. 143,147,341,323,3%,5o6 R/W 149 IPC. 'V the rank of the p:a_11:1r-'_.s "hr.-.fo:n?. the-. trial " "C'x)ti_1_r9:. aI*r.=;"a§.§ - Hfinfiéppa Naik - PW-4 is :11 msitient of Mahjmt:-., VA Honavar, and is mskiing with his wife amcl V' childmng Nmam Hrmnappa Nail-is 3::m~in--iz-tw Manjxmath This Criminal Appeal having been beam for ordcxs avail coming on for pronouncement of__juu:1y;,*c:;i1::n1 ' this day, SARHAH'f'T.I., deiiw-mi the rntknm.ng:~-- .. V. 4- This :.=:pp¢:-.a1 by the is "
judgement of acqtiittal _» .,_i£M,F,C,, Honavar, in No.3!) VE.(),i3f.H)(1, wherein respondent Nest' 133 8 befozt the trial Couzi havvy <1t':f.'ihe.E}:hargcs of having V under Sections 143, 147, 3&1, with Scmfion 149 mat.
The; gisscntiai f'a<:_-.:t :§v'of Viifllfi case irxading up to this appeal 'Eh " It is the case of the proscctation that: Namyan {PW9} is also awning land and Wail was being dug in the land of his sonvirz-law: on ;??...'S.G2. I999. himself and his son- indaw, afltr finishing the work near that Well were accuscxi Nos.I to 8 of having committed the ofl?:nces. in mspcct of which, chm'gc-sheet was _ the amused, AB the pltaded net. anti "
claimed to be tfied. The: pmscmttioicg at<::_ 1':$3i. and got marked the-. doc1tmeni's'_Exs;VP1"'to pAj;ci'.*% Nos. 1 to Statement of the 313 was mooztled. is one of denial, evidence.
The trial contentions of the and thee kaxned
"€*.éc1:sod and appreciating the oral on rcmrd. by its judgement that the pmsccution baa £w1kxl' to the ac-cuacd of having oommittcxi the unezlctr Secfions 143, 147, 341, 323, E'ai'_)6_ i-trad with 149 mcz, and accottlingly, the aczetlaed of the said Br.-sing aggrieved the said juclgcment of acquittal, the State. has pmfcmxl '4 u this appeal.
3. We have heard the k-.a1'm:-xi High Clmurt Crovmnmant Plcacicr appealing fer the. app:-.ikmt-State and \:--> rsg;'1%,}wé:a_nsvmr point No.2 by holding that ax:
A us thxvmgh the of PWs..1 to 5 and the Worzisntcnts of thc documents got mark:-.d by the proacmztution VV and 3-ubmittod that the: complainant and his son.-in-Law, the learned counsel apmring for the a,c4:'.11scar1H.H ' rrrgmfi to the contentions urged, the poixms ttrét our detczmjnation in this appeal A
1. Whether pass:-d by the or for interfe, _. in this éigiir-e:ttl?7' W:
2. =-\Rhat.€r1d-ai§1j ?-
We answer " fly: as i?oin_t_V __ jtuigement of acquittal passed by _§nég~ is jusijficd and am not fiarrzmt in this appeal.
" "':'I3*;3int~I§o.2 """ " 'V In View of ml: finding on poiflt _ to be: dismissed as per the. .5113} ' og«::m ';:;r the. foBowi11g:-
Z I...e.a13:1¢:ad High Court Cnmmment Pkuadcr has both of whom are injmtd in the incident as the cvidcnot: of PW5, of the coszapzainam and 1=w3,% the compkainant would clearly bring home. the . acsceuscxi. The evidence of m lllfii?-'ELI' thai '4 " = PW9 hmi sustained gicvotis 3 1ga;:1;; _ sustained silnple injtuy and the.._pm§é=c;iii-on 1:42.53 to hiring home. the the trial Court was not justificd in "
S. 0:; th¢: '_nth§:r hand. ampmfing for the that the jturlgemcnt of zuquittéi is just1'fie::1 and the evidencI:e_9£'t11e and his son-in--law (PW9) and 'E incuynsilstcnt and not mgexlt ~. civil and cziminat cases pcnditlg b§twecn,'V4fh¢«. §t3mpkainant and the acwcrusx-1.1 and a fl.-wise foisted against the aC('11S-(Ed and the 'V witnesses is also inconsistent mgaxtling the x V' of and under the cixmtmstancxzs, the j u@_i géincnt of acquittal is jusfified and does not call for T " "i'Iii'¢:rfmt-.ncac in this appeal. \;J~ . MO. N0:3.2 and 3 is 11:31: helpftxl to the pmsacnt case as the mine has not '-»cxam'nie;j;%:. mport if} not produced to show that then: were stains on thc said clothes worn by the iajutui.
-: 10:» pirzsmutiean ta pmvc sciztuaz 9f M.0. No.1 :
v1rw'. ofthe facts elicited in his »'
3. W3 :3 a was M Em mganzling of -
PW9 was waiting at and he: has stated aocoxdingly in of MI).
N-os,2 and 3 the suggesti-an in his 011333-eétam Sign-rl. as pancha in
5i'i*Vi:=s_VtA'1;z.1'ti:.-»i:;'1"'e:li~r=it4.':*x.i in his amass:-examination that was p1\'.'fp8.I'f_'.d at 11 gun. Though the cu?irid:;-/not of smppofis scizum of M0. 1103.2 to chcmjm axamination and chemical
9. PW4 is the ccaaplainant in the case. PWS is the wife of the complainant and PWs.6 and 7 accmtiing to the prosecution. an: independent eye-witncames. However, 13913.6 and 7 have not stlpported the of the-. \;~/"
"1, Abrasion 1 "x 5'2"onmrthe. right A'
2. Tcndcmcsas over the L)ac=k';----. A
3. Tcndcmcss over the of She has further dcposgd PW9- Ma13J1'13J.ath 'I'h1:nm' the followm g i13jur'n.-.:s and zxx:on1ing3y."'h¥i;; ocrtifiaite as per Ex,P'7:-
""" ' "x 1" x 952" over the ER Leg; T A % "2, 1"): ea" 3; aa" over the ~. A' wound #12" x 'ff' 1: W' ovrsr 'V 'A g below the wound M.O.. No.1, * Upptzr 1/3 of the left leg swollen; Llppcr 113 ofthc am Leg swollen;
6. Lacrzmtcd wound 1 " X I" x 9'4" «tum.-.r " left leg; Bone! picccs have come: cm of the 7, Movcmcnf of the. left leg is painful, Upper end of the right leg bones fiacttut P *' She has further deposed in last evident: that the injtuics mentioned in Ex.P7 ootlld be caused by assault with hammer -- MI). No.1 and zwmrdingly, she has fixmished '\¢)=--
-: T31- opinicm as per Ex.P3. It is clictitcd in the 1 "
of mm that she made enquiry v:ith_m9" iiésé1'..h'¢;A,%A V' susta:inc:d. injury and the same Ex.P7. Thr: mjtxid " L' 93115::-.v;l if a p¢:rI\5u:m tljjlls 0.1.1' :3 senricc. and apart from the 'Ex_.VP1. them war:
no injurics on this not obtain any about the period wafigamm Hospital, She has nfit to fiactttzt: as " elicited in her cross»
exaxnjiszatfivnnéatixafflic ifijjtfiies mentioned in Exs.P6 and P7' ' V. 'oo1ii<:ia.n5:ii= ham: be»e.:Vfim'<':4..=;11Ise2::! by 35881131 with a club. It is 1_~.m% gfizapxtxekifion of cvitjencxz of PW10 and the and P7, wvmnd mnifimtcs issued by th;+¢%"wm:n she examined PW4 on 2502,1999, $21:
"'L:f§;:111:§.ci"A_'t11e injtmlcs note-xi in Ex*P6 and aha fomxd injuries on ..~h.;=. may of Manjunath-PW9 and am». has opined as per '4 EXEPS that the injitrkzs could be csauscd by iron hammer. It is clear from the wound certificates -» Efxs,P6 and P'? that history of injury is awn as assault. It is not mentioned as to who assautted PW6 or PW? and though \,,:~.
PWIO has stated in 111:: that she mafia ' with the injrntxi as to how they had. »zs11stainé.£i' it' V x is ckar fmm Exs.P'6 and F'? that A-tit' not zmtntioned in Ex:s.P6 12, PW4 £3 tht3thj_s He hm;
dcposexl in his {he date.-. of the incidcnt, after finishing Vthey were returning to at about 6 13,311., when f;!:ii5Y"$'#?'€I;t one furirmg fmm the Well, all the tht.-Am and mttsci No.4 -
Haztmmanth Stabbayya Nail: -
hjxn and fcfl¢_=:d him on the giotmci "at accruscd No.1 ---- Naxagran Subbayya Nail: g aaszifiltcifi. the hammer on the legs of Manjuzmth WW9} K and 0:: hearing his cry. Ananth Vasudema : (Pw6), Ramachandra Nmayzma Naik (PW?) and T " (PW8), son of the complainant camt: to the spot A. and cm setixag them. .'F£(':('--lI8E5d ran away fmm the spot thmatening that they wrmki not it-ave. them. Inj1311:d----PW9 was shiiicd to the Hospital. He to-:31; tmatment in \Fx}>.
" V. '"1115 V" th€tV'm;*.Al11b and pushed him. Nmayan No.4 caught hold of his neck and and all the: M1131;-d assaultexl PWIO with Hmtunantha Subba Nail; ~ a<:=ct_1sex:E No.7 assatttted V' a0n.~i11-law - Manjunath with imn h:.'i.!I1]31€I', Ha: czmnot '4 tell the number of timcs each of the acc.11scd assaulted his
-:15» Hormvar hospitai. He has sustained injtuy Manjunath was shifted to K 2 for further tmatment mi he injmics. PW4 has further ziaok " T' treatment for one moqth with Manjtmath at the I-Ir.vr.-';z';.r.{tca.1... lodged the complaint as No.1 as the hammer thgfiotrm which PW9 was wcag-glig The other :..m<:r1.zscad I PW9. It is clitzitcd in his cxtzss-cxA€¥1I§iili1ti¢§3:a.. actcrtlsaexi were holding clubs. .Acc11s_mi _No.--'-'ix Ronnmwa Naik assmzltod him on his mm: to his rescue. and all the M-cttasexi son~--in~kzw, It is further elicited that the other acmlacd have also assattltcxi him. There is paddy Land on the side of the mad, The mad is in the dilrxstion of East to \r5<
-: I6 :-
West and hens: of accused N0?' is near oflhucc and house of the. other ac'--C.':'£Sv'~E1.--'5 is :93: ¢ _tl,cié: and the other accused are not _ It. 'is ._ elicited in his cIoss~cxamiua3u7§n..§hatA't't "
against him and PW thgy a§é3au!tex;1i:1cx:11sczi N«;s.5 and the smnc and in that case. himself. mg an: the .-aoceuscxzi. H!-'.-- {ifimpiaints filed by them aga'1'viI:§s.1:.V ~ff1r1h4-.-.r elicited in his dispute mgarciing flow of water béfg-qwfitn and the accused have obtai_n-'::r1_:.1 'vorficr fitam the Cozm and it is irlit:
. 'thfaf xa of have beam filed against the aé;;1g§.ea. the said dispute.
1"3,L'1L PVJ9--Manju.uath is the sozzvin-law of PW4. He in his <:xan:u'nation-in»-chief that on the date. of " j %%a;..:«. incidctnt. himself and his fathcrwin-law, hm mt:>t11cr-in- law wv:.I!: coming on Ikini road near the Well and all the amusmi restrained thcm and gacscusxnd No.6--Mahesh Macihava N.-ai}; abtlsed 11$ fathc:r--iI1-law (PW4) and «:2-alight hold of hm neck and pushed hiln to the gmmd and when \,»/"'
33..
Accused No.1. He has denied the doposing tlttlscly against the to
14. PW5 is tho wife she has dopos-ed in hey: cx.tn1;i;1oifi<3:I4»i;;~cl.§iéfv£ha!:§ on the date of the incidcnt, LPW4) and their son-in-law (PW£'9_}*vef_e.e11c: firm mishing the work all the accused Stxbmafim came and caught hold of the neck of him to the mound and her s§:afi--in-kfiv was pusher! by ac-c1.1:su;-azl No.1- Noik and he assaulted on the logs of tho hammer. She: cnod. ' - and on hcam1' g "cry, Vamuicv Naik and her son - Lakeahman (Ewe; ézmic to that spot and they snatched the ohlbs which V' were holding. Ac-mtaexci thneatenod "them whik:
away from the spot. She. has idcntificui MI). No.1 as the hammer which her son-in.-Jaw was hokiing and MI), N032 and 3 as the clothr.-.3 which her son-in-Law was wcming at the time of the incident. She has filrthcr dcposed that when Police coma:-., she showed the: of K)» the evidence: of PWs.4 am} 9 and. hctr ~ 3 furthezr SIIOW that ha: son - Lakshman (PW8) jx M spot after she cr'r.-d and wherefore. fiziéi tfizicxsgctt; E31523 mic out the: possibility of PW8 VV incident, Further, it is clear cross-cmammation thiiif 'fie:-..xj', scifine-Aof' was shown by her ttzsfltgrl' same is in 'gzudhcbayaltt',:.w'35;ic%§1 of P'Ws.4 and 9 and the 1 ' fhc. son of the complainant-
PW4 and " stated in his cxam;inat1'on--in- V. '_ chif:f3.:thz=§t on fl§méng__fl:;e cry. he went to the spot and saw 't1V1.dt, __mother and bmtl1cr--in~lmv Le... "V3.4. S asaauitbd by the acxztttstxi. Aeolian.-1:1 No.1
-V - éutnbtmygm Nazi]: asesatfltcsd his bmthcr-indm M' " ' (PW?) 5:; both Km legs. Acctlsed No.6-Mahcsh Madhava .' %:.1lt¢.-d his Jfiathcr. 'The other accmscd T "';:#d.{-zrwaultinxg his father. He: snatched the hammer which Namyan Subbayya Naik (accused No.8) was hokling and he pacified the quarrel, Accused thxtatcnai them and went away from the spot, It is in his cmss-cxamination '\3,'\ w-Q answer Point N01 by holding judgement of afiquittal passed by the izs" * _ and does ncrt call for interfertncee in this 3 '«
17. mm No.2: In View o£%m§r ansvéer p0 i11t No.1, we hold that the and accordingly. pass the ' V' V The appcai of acquittal pasau.-sci by tI§.V¢.:-. Hon.-Ivar. in (LG, No.3fJ15/ glam.-4 Sd/--
Iudge Sd/-.__% Iuéqa