Ayyanagouda Ramanagouda Kesarabhavi vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Ayyanagouda Ramanagouda Kesarabhavi vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2010

Bench: K.Govindarajulu

?
Eﬁﬂ.YANKANAGCRHMRCHANNAPPA{H3UDAR
MANNAPUR
Ag6:48 YEARS
OCC:AGRKXH$URE
R/O. HUNGUND
IHSTBAGALKOTV

SRL1wAHANTEsHIRAMAPPAGCAHXXKasaégéﬁgvl_ 

Age:25 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R/O. I-IUNGUND
DIST BAGALKOT

sﬁu.SHARANAPPArwAHANTAPPAIMmﬁEHAL 3
Ag®45YEARS .*, .""-T-"z "~~
0Cc:AGRK1nmURE  ;

R/O.HUNGUND _' .v<
£n9rBAGALKoTA-m_='

SRL1agMAmA§mnHm&AYYANAGCnHnxKESARABHAVI
Ag€27€J4YP§AR'37'.V_ V __    
0cc;AGRmgmmUREQ~"" E

R/O:HUNGUND"g=. "»w*

1:~IST BAGALKOT  

:§ﬁ;sHARANAY&A§ANCHAYYAIQUJJMATHQQ
GANACHARI.' " *

; Age : 38 YEARS
;&QcC:coOmE.mV _____
".uRfO.HUNGUND
'~_u$?BAQmKQT

'V¢s§LEmAﬁANTAY&APANcHAYYALQu1mmATH@§
,_GANAgHAR1
'Aga:x5YEARs

OCCJMEVER

"m_Rjo.HUNGUND
HEXSFBAGALKOT



I&

12

DJ

SRL NAGAYYA PANCHAYYA RA;;1MA*m'@«-- . 
GANACHARI " ""~'~ s."«
Aga:3;3 YEARS

occ; DRIVER

R /0. HUNGUND

DIST BAGALKQT

SR1. MALLANAGOIJDA RARw\;RG'©UDA K1::$A'RABHAv1
Age:2':7 YEARS ' ' --   

occ: BUSINESS
R/O. HUNGUND
DIST BAGALKOT 

SMT. sI~iAN_TAx,&fWA.jQ_/'@_ PA"N'CE-LA'{YA KALLIMATH @
GANACHA:RI.»  .  

AgMe:4.2_YRAR::;;;:_ ~ '

oqjc: CAOVQLIEE  4 

R /2.0. :~iUNGUjRDR   

DIST B;4xGALKQ_T.  "

CHANNAMMA W RANCHAYYA KALLIMATH 

_CANAcHARL_ ,
 V..R4.Ag¢A:-65vvyEARSOcC: COOLIE3
,  R,/Q..;1U'R<3UND
 _ 'ms1fBAGAL.KoT

".APPELLANTS

(By  Asﬁigﬁ R KALYANASHETTY, ADV.)

RAND

- _ V~.f'?HE"S§TATE OF KARNATAKA
' . BY 'S':'ATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   ARVQCATE GENEZRALS OFFICE
  mam COURT BUILDINGS
 BANGALORE «-560 0001

H.RESPONDENT

(By Sr: v.MBANAKAR, HCGP}



E~}ZUNGUN§ BEST BAGALKOT  A  -  _
:0. NAGAYYA PANCHAYYA E<;-RLLAIMATH @QA§§AQ}i;%R1 ' 

AGED 32 YRS occ DRWEZR R50 Is:UN£3UN:}'.i:Q"V    

HUNGUND DIST BAGALKOT I

M. MALLANAGOUDA RAMANAGQUDAi§EésA§aBHA5.fiwj~~%%,,__  7

AGED 24 YRS OCC BUSINESSVR/O HUNGUND : V
TQ HUNGUND DIST BAGALKOT'  2   V.

12. SI:-IANTAWWA D/O PANc1i'A3fY'A_KA:}LAﬁx«1}iT1»i':@
GANACHARI .  _    
AGED 39 YRS oer; CuOO.LY:R/'QV_H_U-BIGUND TQ

I---IUNGUND DIST BACEALKLOT .   _
13. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/Q P'ANCI_.-IA {'1jA_£§ALLAIMATH @

GANACHARI ,w»_V  _ v_a,
AGED 62..Y"R_S'_' 00:: CQQ:LY..R;'Q.HU1V'GUND
TQ I-IUI§It;';UN13__DIST BAGALF{-0'1' 

-~ ~  4-   " * ' RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Asﬁgxé.ﬁ:_:<AiQY'AiiIé;ixgﬁwrvgabv.)

c:RL;A.. 'Is'F1LE:i;1 u._g3.378(1) 85 (3) CR.P.C BY THE
STATE P32, FoR'TH'E"sTAIfE;'PRAY1NG THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY. BE. PLEA_SB--D TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN
AP?1_é~:ALu.AGA1Ns%r THE: JUDGEMENT DT.6.10.04 PASSED

'1'I~.EE. 30., W041, BAGALKOT, IN S.C.NO.155/O1~
 ACQU::%r1N£; -~THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
<...C>§_FE;T:~:,§:Es' ?;<L:1;;ss.323, 5:34 R,fW SEC. 149 0:? IPC,

 TfvﬁS CxR1MINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THES

 DAY, T1-i§E3~CC?URT BELEVEREE3 '§HE FOLLOWING:



JUDGMENT

Accused in S.C.Nee155/2001 have Criminal Appeal No.1-489/2004. ..sw:e¢ es; case has preferred appeal common order of both thefeasesv" for V consideration. V ' ' 2

2. Case of the'kSte;te" Ex.P3. EX.P.3 is the complaint._£?orr1p1e;ihe;rrt of Hulguru village. Le. brother Chandraeshi/<ﬂVifmTr Pune in Maruti Car /CA.3008 on the said date accused "N985 hi-e_bte":13 were the members of an A,un1e;§vf1;;1e:as_semh1y;~ir:'furtherance of the common object _the}:./"hevehdjifrﬁrizgitted rioting, set ﬁre to the saree in the heuse 0f.e:omp1ainant, set fire to the Maruti Car of "wzzhhen the accused were questioned as ts why they VA the thorns obstructing to reach to the VA .,laf§'a.tery. On account of these acts of the accused, there "'i../' S '.

is 3. loss ef property to the tune of Rs.1,50,GQQf_f';e.Se charge sheet ie filed for the offence under _ 147; 323}435§451,435, and 504 read IPC.

13. On the ground the£t....the case _hd;e:s' tried * L' by a Sessions Judge ease Judge, of PO. Fast .4 has secured the presence" the charge.

Accused tc R11 are eXami:n,ed;~ M.O.1 to 3 are markedqfi'Aggeéericzeeididitrtgti. believed the case of the prosecutiori-«.. c'onvicte«dWthe accused for the offences ._gnc;j_je}~. Sieictieon iA4'7;ete4e5'1, 435, 436. is in appea} on the ground that for . the <5'the--tf offences the conviction being not recorded, the dfcimclusiden are wrong. Accused have preferred the

-- challenging the entire judgment recorded by the " "learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court' 10 Vehicle far 3 months. Why there,:iefa. V' remains unsubstantiated.

iv. lf really the aecused:=,A_has.Aentered.' therrltzeueel of the complainant and has loel<ed'~them:_in a._ room has contend-ed there was no ﬂg:h,anc:_e for.' 1 them to see the"v--bi:rrning eavr."So the circumstances pleaded, placed before the court do not cerrob.orate._ witheaeh other, but they are .eon'tradivetery. _ V. V) If really the *aeeuseldf'_=has entered the house of the._eornplainant'7and has locked therzt all room, ahev"_j'~.haslj'again contended that {there was_ no .. cjhaneelsl for them seeing burzaiﬁg of"'='€he"' the circumstances rnVa"te::i,,al es/*i'de'n_ee___ple2izded, placed before the "court n'ot"'eo1'rob'orated with each other, ._ -bultluthey_are"'*--contradictory, In View of the ~sarne'the_ 'c'o_rliviction recorded by the learned 'atrial ju_dge "is"'_not justified. Much less there is a _<p:aseffo"1.* the State to follow. 80, pray for allowing the appeal preferred by the "l'accused;l and dismissal of the appeal 'épreferred by the State.

dLe.arned S.P.P. on the other hand contends thatlthe is resting on version of eye witness. Motivatien is not] the rla. M tive l osles ité ~».eonseq1;;_enees. ln e acts (3 e ease e une a enge yers_i}_>n of the Witnesses is found, why their versions ..ll"'~l.l:Wshould not be believed is the criteria. The settled 11 principle found by the dicta of the Horﬁbie that the fauit of the Investigating OfﬁC€I"CE3ei§i7}:<§)'L:~A.K§iTiiI1L3!t'i€iV 9 the benefit of the accused. So, the ti:ei1g_;y'«;;;1'1 requieition to the Motor Vehicle Inf5pe«::tor in:S1:5ec9£j Vehicle is not a criteria. The f'e.sn1tant 'aetu'ie':the: criteria. So, pray for aeceptingiithe 0:"e,1 evi.§:1efiee of the Witnesses, 1ZS)€€lS€ Conviction for all the ijffenc-es!'Ccortiplained of the a e. --. I "

6.__ by the learned Public Proseejuter \2i7t1'en._»4th.e"'vcTéiee rest on the evidence of eye witness; Jeonsequences. But when the caserest on "eyidence of interested, related witnesses, V"<:.<;»1'i'rt causally examine the version to find out the ei*e.ri:it.v:wr§i*t'r1iness of the Versions of the witnesses, as the.4__V1af§v ~3ieti:ditiown by the Hon'b1e apex Court in Kailu @ A State cf Madhya Pradesh (2006 AER SCW 13

7. In the ﬁght of the above mandate u:€eIe:r'L:'}.e{V:g the point that arise for consideration is as uhdear/:-,: t Whether the conc1usi0n:"rea'chAe{i' learned Presiding Officer No.155/2001 is justified.

8. P.W.1« is EX.P'1 He states thatA'pe1ice""h'ev}e eny properties while E3X.P.1. Public Prosec§,1t0r hEL::s as hostile suggested that p'o1ic'e' haveff::.eVized--e._th'et burn articles, ash, a saree and otheu19..i_tems'.3rQ'}:j1'e.,:\'t'ecordir1g the mahazar as per .....

is the complainant, complainant while referring toufthe relationship of the accused in between hcohtend that there is a motive for the accused e.Q"t~oVW:::rc1s the family of the complainant. Narrate that the

-family members of the complainant have erected a water tank, it was got removed at the instance of the locat 13 people? en the gmuncl that, it ebstruets the_4.::;{a§;j.l~..'I1*:

regard to the incident in question, en . brother Chandrashekhar, has _c_fe.::ne 'EC? ll"

Maruti Car it was about 6.90 No.8 has placed/put aecrees_TteV_ thdrne, so' te"eb.struet"Vl' the inmates of the larfhily eQ1fn1::.leLi:"1s2..ntVvi§to reach the lavatory. So, . said to have questioned %ecused No.8 has put tc:-.2 portion, then it is said that member of unlawful assenthly: object have entered the house of the eomplainéiit , burn the articles including a sa§~.e4e,:,,'the;~gafte'flVpftielamed that they will burn the Car. 'l'hefee;fter,4Vh'l'a_eked the complainant and family members and while going away they have burnt the Car, valued at Rs. 150,000 / -, thereby speaks

-eensimanee with the cemplainant, in the cross-

" ~-~eXatni::etiee he speaks abeut the infermetion. The version ef the witness is not in ceneenance, with the accused have tress passed into the house} bi;ifh«t.'_*s_a:"e;e;ﬂ it is half burnt identify it as Met. F.W.;éV.A4S'he}l::ar.apl;aa--«.. Sangappa states that he was preselﬁt, conducted rnahazar in the h0use._of theeV»e'eAmVplaif;aht, while seizing burnt articleslvlvahjd he as EXP. l(b}. P.W.7~Mallah::a Mlallaniagouda treated as hostile, conducting of supports. It is said to be" t1:e0ee'rded damage to the ear. Mannapur is also treated """ was suggested that the pahchanama per EX.P.4 and that at the instance ef'~aeeusvecl'~aep'0sing falsely. P.W.9~Vijaykumar Vvt.Cha\lfan~--------states of the surveyor visiting the velhieie'--v.a11l,dl'estimates the value of the damage of the ¢a:;"as He admits the particulars of EX.P.5. M ?_ 4' Ex,1é.slwo01d Show that it is dated 8.05.2000. Whereas l_j..date_ of incident is 8.2.2000, Why there is a delay tethains unsubstantiated, P.W.lQ Chidanand Rayappa lllllllienaxxsadkar states that he having received the / E6 eernpiairit and registered it in Crime No.1?/2800, sent FIR as per EX.P.6. arrested the accused Nos. 1 produced the accused before the court. Theﬁery" ~ narrated supra, both sides parties beirig" on night. the arrest asserted, is <1.isb.e1ie've'd."He furthievr. submits he sent a requisitieh"'t.0 the"-RTQ, t0 the " V ear, submit the report andVAVh.eﬁidentifies"the report as per EX.P.8. E:><:.P.8 time of the requisition is vtihspectiori was 5.5.2000. to is 7.2.2000.

Whe has sent requisition, is examirieci as about the requisition to the RTO, the1earn_eeL.Vatir}0cate for the accused has not ._vcho._se:1 t0 bring xiﬂl/'l""'\'eV1iV3/'V there is a delay in sending the re.q1iieitis_rii fer' the estimation of damage of the car. Ningappa Bermi states that he has 'not witrieissed to the incident, So, he is treated as V' ,...i

-«.1

10. The discussion of the evidence would lead to a conclusion that except foi'__tl::.e V' witnesses, no other witness, has suppo:rte:d--th'e_@;a'se of the prosecution. The version of the Witnessle'_sA'do 'not 'sme with the Version pleaded l:>y.ﬁti--i,e lnvestigaisinlgilbifficers.it Admittedly, the case "isV reg'i*st'efed under lseceoii 323, in View of Chandrashelthat, there is a duty cast to collect the information to the nature of the injury... bij/f'--.:vlChandiiashekar, having not colleei.;3q._ 4', "lcome with the appeal for conviction.uundeja'éeetioln 4323 remains unsubstantiated. It pijobabalise charge sheet put by the Investigating is to be supported by some method, either H Similarly} when there is a delay in sen"c3in'g the requisition} why the delay is there is not que4_stioned by the defence counsel, hear again the defence is not a deligent, There is a blaming by one side "over the other side rather than effort made by party to .§,»""

bring home the truth ef the a11e»ged:"i:1eideht.. j'se;; situatieh the eeurt has to r':§:_)11sideVr' burning of the saree and Of the saree along with EX.P.1¢ This burning of thee-aree complaint.

As rightlyr. counsel in the entire of the saree is not mentieped; i_rrtp0rtant material can be missed whj.1e har:iating.the complaint is the Criteria. The prirrejlale' er1uriei'ateds.vby the Hon'b1e Apex court is that, HR is not encyclopaedia, if there is a delay to be explained, this is the settled law W_»found..fro;mV the earliest ruling . Ishwarsing. Vs. State h V»If'd'rmar Pradesh (AIR 1975 Sc 2423) Why the btfarning of the saree is not mentioned by the compiainant in the complaint remains unsubstantiated. 80, also that the complainant party had a opportunity to see burning of the car by the accused, why no effort is made fer a peried of three months to assess the value

-the eirejdrrtstanejes sf» ' l'?

of the damage of the car remains unsubstantiated. In the light cf the oral evidence on one hand blamln:g't~.the accused, Circumstantial evidence showing the accused, if the evidence is a;r1alysed"as*- law"

declared by the E-lcrfble Apex, ftc carefully, the court holde'_"'that the thee' complainant and his, br0the.t:"~fa:;1.._.ily ﬁiembeere cannot stand to the test of So, court holds that Presiding Officer, not justified. So the Cr1.A. No.l484/2004 is atlewgd; _;State in Crl.A 1740/2004 is disrI'1_iSseVd."-4.. * 'V fine atrleutit paid by the accused is ordered to _ 'ee:paid-tc 'accused, '' Bail stand cancelled.

Rgms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court