Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Basavarajappa on 31 May, 2010
I (,I1'l.A l(.)f:',2/O7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY or MAY 2o1of.V_.
BEFORE A »V L. .
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs'r1cE.A,s,_PAcHHA.§;j1iE u
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.:1o2:2o7F
BETWEEN
The State of Karnataka A. = *
By Holalkere Police. _ '.*.._A?PELLANT/S
(Sri. A.V. RamakAr_ishna,',H(:3 G.P)' k
1. Sri. Bas:a.ya19.'aVj';1pfi'a;
S / 0,, ---1F'--ar3fr1::eshi3*a.ra;1pa , A
Age-cl abo1jt?'.36 years. . '
Agri.cu1--t'u1'.ist',v -. M
2. Sri. Shivfappag' _ V
S/.o_. Esh9Wa;9app--a,
Aged about ' 45 « years.
'Ag'ri£:u1tu;'ist, """
&
._ "-S_/.o;"§{a1.ap.p'a'. A
' Aged _3,beiut' 26 years.
IE.-gricgulttirlst,
' _ Sn; Klee:-abhadrappa,
V S/Ao. Basavanthappa,
Wfkged about 24 years,
Agricuiturist.
2 (.".1'} .,5\ 1022/07"
5. Sri. Umesh,
S/o. Late Siddappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Agriculturist.
6. Sri. Rajappa,
S/o. Shivalingappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Agriculturist.
7. Sri. Nagarajappa,
S/o. Onkarappa,
Aged about 22 years,
Agriculturist, .
8. Sri. Nagola Nagarajaf '
S/o. Kuberappa,
Aged about 33'years;'V'V' ~
Agriculturist,'§.__.'*
9. Sri. : it
S/o.lvOn§;aVI§:1ppEi:-,;
Aged abo11t528_ayears.=,
Agrieulturist.',7,
10. Sri. *'rhi'mmaiah.. "
S/.3-. Late}'*3hant'hap_13a.
, , Aged about 35} years,
p Agrieultiirist,
of Kengunte
r Village .."_3'.-{olalke re Taluk,
Dt: Chitra,-durga. RESPONDENT/S
_ R."Sl_i3ashidhara, Adv. for R-1 to R-10)
p. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 3378(1) &
.._"'{3}'Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to file an appeal against
judgement dt.30.10.2006 in spur. (SC/ST PA)
13 (Irl./X 1022/O7
No.35/2004 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga ~ acquitting respondent/accused for the
offence p/u/S.143, 143. 323, 324 & 506 r/w sec.,g149_ of
IPC and U/S. 3 (1) (X) and 3 (2) (V) of the ST
(Prevention ofAtrocitieS) Act 1989. " i.-
This Criminal Appeal coming on for_.Ad-rr1:'isVsior1«,A V.
day, the Court, delivered the fo1iow'i'iig*.--« s
JUDGMEN'ffi ' it
The State has cha11§n.g'a1 :h'e.__ acgVuitt:i:1"""of: the".
respondents for the charges un--derv--Sie*etions' }148, 323,
324. 506 readwith 149 'time- r_1a?§:;:e1 326 readwith
Section 149 II'C_:'and s.;e'¢:£'ioTzgs _'3(.f1;)_V_(x'} afijti 3 (2) (v) of the
Scheduled (Prevention of
Atrocities)"sA.et';;' {h--ereina§ft'er"ea11ed as 'the Act') on a
trial held by: the: Chitradurga.
2. favcts-_re1.eir'-arit for the purpose of this appeal
= are ?.is:'«:uI3.Fi€Tj: « ..... .. v
:v'Jey'.appa, a resident of Kengunte Village.
11c1.ai1'z»;er§:".?"--'a1_fi§.>;' ibelongs to Adikarnataka community and in
[the c4o:*§;1ifi>.1VaiiIi1it Ex.P.1 he states that on 17.2.2004 with the
V' iljpeirserxs of his community Went for taking water to the tap.
.oi.'_-Thheiieiccused (the respondents herein) belonging to the
4 <:r1.Ai1o2:a/()7
upper community came and quarrelled with them and also
caused assault on one Raghavendra. In this reg'a.rd~,. a
complaint to the Police was lodged on 19.2.2010-4'atfiabovut
10.00 a.m. When the complainant and""'th_e,ll'persons"'
belonging to his community were?' proce'edin'g_ "*:1t_o
Malladihalli Grama Panchaya:th__.. the'-Vaccusedl' t:o.tValli_r§1gvlto":i.
about 10 to 15 persons the" bearing
Registration a11J_fi¢~¥1 i§raii.or.viAbeabringAllegistration
No.KA 16-711 and afteritaliightihhigtilie*--l'i'ractor, started
abusing the referring to their
caste and ljonipilainant and others to
Maliadiiiailiii the complainant and
others anlctait No.1 Basavaraj caused the
assault -with the stoneihoni the forehead and Accused No.10
.i§«ags'ed. assault withluaiiciub on the head and at that time,
it ' K
others intervened and rescued the
cornp4lain,anti'.'j'..--'i'he accused took the injured in the said
3"-'«.__VTractor'first to the office of Deputy Commissioner and
"'tljie.rea:fter to the District Hospital at Chitradurga and after
admission of the injured in the hospital, the
/'
C1'i.A 1022/{)7
Cjl
requisition was sent to the Police and thereafter PWC12
came to the hospital and recorded the complaint
as per Ex.P.1 and held the investigation. During.
mahazar in the presence of PW.6 and anothepr','-..MO_s;l' :o'4__ T
were seized under Ex.P.2. The
to another Police Station within
incident had taken place anditl'r%i1V3eafter a was
registered for the second' occasion; theiacciised were
apprehended. The injurp of PW.1 was
collected and were recorded
and on PW.13 filed the
charges3{1eet._
3. the trial'..:the prosecution examined PWs.1
~,to in théir___ey'ivdence, got marked the documents
..tvo'.pP._8*and MOs.1 to 4. The statement of the
rpeciorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They
--have htiakein defence of total denial and have not led any
iiiptdefcncpe efiridence. The Trial Court on appreciation of the
Qjn1Za--te'riel on record acquitted the respondents herein and
pflljiiziggirieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred. [>4
*-J
(Trl.:'\ 1022/0?'
accused and therefore, submits that the Trial Court was
justified in granting an order of acquittal.
6. I have scrutinized the evidence"-..led::_"hy V'
prosecution and also the docus.nents;._ So' .if.a:_.aiss'~cthe
incident on 17.2.2004 is concernledfit is dstaited
separate case has been registered.» As conld._Vl3e"seein from
the allegations in the" .complaint,:' 'the xnotviveilto cause
assault was the incident could be seen
from the evic'ive.z1l(::e_ and the other
eyewitnesses] is a long standing
dispute landwand there were litigations
pertaining to on civil and criminal side.
It is in theuV'c..ontVe:sicit.oi";the.se circumstances the evidence of
_._the v.*itne'sses vvillhavr: to be looked into. So far as the
lgcrin1.ina!_case:in respect of the complaint dated 17.2.2004,
no~_1naterialfis 'placed on record. No doubt. it is relevant to
. noteiithatfthehallegations in the complaint reveal the names
{en accused persons, but it is also stated that there were
i9n'an{y as 10 to 15 persons who came in the tractor. WC
5%; ('.rl.;'\ I022/{)7
7. So far as the part played by each of the accused
except Accused Nos.1 and 10. nothing has been stated.
PW.1 in his complaint states that Accused bios} and 10
caused the assault on the forehead with 3 handfulvoif'-.sto_ne
and a club. Even as could be seen
certificate. which has been produced
complainant PW.1 has sustained lac-e.ra?ted.inljurly'i
right side of the forehead ax:-q a covniusioswlpQ.;j_the§ 1'ei'+__fo,
temporal area. Thereby. as couldbe seen fthegevidence
of the Doctor PW.7 an§1_."1st1e ."inj;,Iry~pglrtificate Ex.P.5. the
contents corroborate thfiiveprsion so far as the
injury caused bljrjAcc11sedl'NVos., 1_' and 10. There is consistent
version so ..far,as by Accused Nos.1 and 10
and this fact has been 'supported by the evidence of PWs.2, .
as rest of the accused are concerned,
there is v.no...inat.er~ia1 worth acceptance as nothing has been
stated by-"these witnesses regarding the part and there are
l.u"'~.__lg»eAneralz vague allegations in addition to the admitted
the complaint that there were more than ten
persons who came in the Tractor. Thereby, it is difficult to
20 CIrl.A 1022/07
which accused abused in what manner is not stated either
in the complaint or in the evidence of these witnesses.
Such a vague and general version of the _pr_ose'ctiVtioz31
cannot be accepted to hold the accused guilty.-iiienicel. it
of the opinion that the material sodiiariiastihe ~:of.fVen--ce_Vunde'r
Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (2) (v) of the Plot is .insuffi~cien't,to,
hold the accused guilty.
10. As regards thgrgmailniinigigottencesiare concerned,
there is no material to who gave
the threat of to§.A_A*clVi1ii.-is1'§fe'..§if"tjhev'complainant has not
been specifilclalvly.dfihgcomplaint or in the
evidence. A: statement has been made
against alllifljle accuserl "hafi'ing given such a threat. Such a
general and vagu-aversion cannot be accepted in law. In
AV__t3zat._Vvie:w_oi"-the matter, the accused cannot be held-
re~s1$onsible'_~f__or;.the abovesaid offences.
1.};';v.a Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW.1
i:'sso'lely because that there was a long standing enmity and
-- cihrirninal case between the parties, but at the same time, it
>4
1 } (:ri.A 1022,-"(J7
did not consider the general principle about the evidence
of an injured witness who generally does not impi_ic..atc_ an
innocent as his evidence has been corrobor_a'ted[jby'tithe
contents of the complaint and the evidenc.eV_A'_oefVV .ot.':1er,
eye witness. Thereby. it commitgtedb_anj.e'.1jror'in'*i.gno::i.ng
this material and granting an order of acqnittvalii agjainstfl
Accused Nos.l and 10 for theiiioffence Vunderf Section 323
IPC.
12. So far as -the sentence5Vis_.~cionf;3f§fi1ed. it is in the
evidence of theprosec§:ition..rthat"Accused No.1 and others
after causin_g"'ass.a1tg1t_ tookhtahemcziear the Tractor first to
the office of the'v;tj-eggiutgi'--(§e--:m:nissioner and then admitted
the injured" einit.heV'hospit.a:1_'; So this conduct of the accused
will .»1i1:a've~ to v'b"e.,nreighed and in my opinion, it is a
mitigating. cir-cumstance to reduce the sentence. So
cons-i_cier'inggaI1,.'these facts and circumstances, I am of the
. opinion vthatkccused Nos} and 10 are guilty of the offence
. ,ii1rsd;e_r Section 323 readwith 149 IPC and to this extent, the
_'a"pp'ea1: of the State has to be allowed. Hence. I answer the
DC
E2. (.'i'i.A £022/O7
point partly in affirmative and parfiy in negative and
proceed to pass the foliowing:
ORD ER
The appeal is aliowed in part, tlpildev
acquittal of Respondent Nos.1 and
10). They are convicted for t.he__offef1ce"
readwith 149 IPC and each Nos.1
and 10) are ordered to each, in
default, to undergo month. The
acqufitai of Reéyéadeat fies 3 aha it) and the other
accused in dsection 323 readwith
149 appealv is accordingiy disposed
Of. _ _ V .» _ .
.
'mm. _____ JUDGE H?