Karnataka High Court
Shrishail Murigeppa Balikal, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 10 July, 2012
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2872/2011
BETWEEN:
SHRISHAIL MURIGEPPA BALIKAI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KALLATTI ONI, TERDAL,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri. RAVI S.MATTUR, SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE,
ADVS.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI,
TERDAL POLICE STATION,
NOW REPTD. BY SPP
2. VINAYAKA S/O. RAMAKRISHNA BANKAPUR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MAHADEV TEMPLE,
TERDAL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
Crl.A.2872.11
2
3. PRAKASH S/O. LAXMAN HOSAMANI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KALLATI ONI, TERDAL ,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. LAXMAN S/O. MUDAKAPPA HOSAMNI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. FARM HOUSE AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. PRASHANT @ PUTUSWAMI S/O. RAMACHANDRA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: KHANAVALLI BUSINESS,
R/O. GOVT. CHOUDI AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. ANIL S/O. DALU PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVARAJ NAGAR AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
7. ISHWAR S/O. CHANAYYASWAMI TEVAR
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. DEVARAJ NAGAR AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
8. SIDDAPPA S/O. SHANKREPPA KHAVASHI
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: WEAVING,
R/O. DEVARAJ NAGAR AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
9. VIRAJ S/O. RAMAKRISHNA BANKAPUR,
AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MAHADEV TEMPLE AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
10. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VASUDEV BANKAPUR,
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE DOCTOR,
Crl.A.2872.11
3
R/O. MAHADEV TEMPLE AT TERDAL,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. V.M.BANAKAR, ASPP FOR R1
R2 TO R10 ARE SERVED)
---
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 372 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, JAMAKHANDI,
IN SESSIONS CASE NO.65/2009 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, DR. K. BHAKTHAVATSALA J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is complainant's appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 31/10/2011 made in Sessions Case No.65/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi, acquitting the accused (respondent Nos.2 to 10 herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC.
Crl.A.2872.11 4
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused caused injuries with iron mess board, iron rod and 4 wooden clubs, but the trial Court acquitted the accused and on the other hand convicted the present appellant- complainant and his men in the counter case in S.C No.60/2009.
3. The learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 - State submits that there was a case and counter case and insofar as the complaint lodged in Crime No.9/2009, case was registered in S.C.No.60/2009 against the present complainant and hie men and they faced trial. The Sessions Court by judgment dated 31/10/2011 convicted the present appellant and other accused for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC and awarded sentence. He further submits that the complainant with an intention to counter blast the complaint lodged by the complainant in Crime No.9/2009, lodged a compliant in Crl.A.2872.11 5 Crime No.10/2009 on 24/1/2009 at about 8.30 a.m. whereas the complaint in Crime No.9/2009 was registered on 23/1/2009 at about 9.45 pm. He also submits that the present appellant-complainant and PW-5 have received simple injuries while attacking the persons in Crime No.9/2009 and the trial court has rightly held that the appellant's group was aggressor and there is no merit in the appeal.
4. We have noticed that the present complainant and four others who were convicted in S.C. No.60/2009 have filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.2886/2011 on the file of this Court challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2011 made in S.C.No.60/2009, but the complainant has not whispered a word about conviction recorded and filing of the appeal. However, from the observation made in para Nos. 37 and 38 by the Sessions Court, it is crystal clear that the present appellant/complainant lodged a complaint in Crime Crl.A.2872.11 6 No.10/2009 on 24.01.2009 at about 8.30 am with an intention to counter blast the complaint registered against him and his members in Crime No.9/2009. The trial Court has observed in the judgment made in S.C.No.60/2009 that the complainant and his members were real aggressors and the present complainant and PW-5 Gurubasappa Murigeppa Balikai sustained simple injuries during the course of attacking the victims in Crime No.9/2009 and therefore, accused in SC No.65/2009 were acquitted for the offences alleged against them.
5. We see no good grounds to entertain the appeal. In the result, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-