Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Muniraju @ Angadi Muniraju on 4 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.NO. 300/2010
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Kothanur Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. Muniraju @ Angadi Muniraju,
35 years, S/o Narayanappa,
2. Suresh @ Thammaiah
S/o Narayanappa, 28 years,
3. Pillaiah S/o Papaiah, 48 years,
4. Devaraj S/o Rajanna, 30 years,
5. Kumaraswamy @ Kumar
S/o Rajanna, 20 years,
6. Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy
S/o Narayanappa, 32 years,
7. Bhaskar S/o Gundappa, 28 years,
Accused No.1 to 7 are
2 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
R/at N.G. Gollahalli, Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri D.R.S., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence: 18-05-2010
2. Date of report of occurrence : 18-05-2010
3. Date of commencement of : 19-04-2013
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 15-10-2018
5. Name of the Complainant : Venkatesh
6. Offences Complained of : Sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 326,
326, 325, 323, 504, 427,
506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and
Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA.)
Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are acquitted for the
offences p/u/s 325, 326 r/w
149 of IPC and convicted for the
offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148
323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s
3(1)(x) of The SC & ST (PoA.)
Act.
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sampigehalli Sub- Division, Bengaluru has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 427, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
2. Based upon the first information lodged by C.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh, the Kothanur police have registered the first informant report bearing Crime No.78/2010. After completion of investigation charge sheet is submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sampigehalli Sub-Divsiion for aforesaid offences.
3. This case which was pending before II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru was transferred to this exclusive special court as per the order Notification No.ADM I(A) 599/2017 dated 29.7.2017.
4. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
C.W.1 is the first informant belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste. The accused persons belong to Golla community which does not comes under Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe. That on 18.5.2010 at about 10.30 AM C.W.1 and his son were engaged in the construction work of Samudaya Bhavana situated at N.G. Gollahalli. At that time the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly at Samudaya Bhavana of N.G. Gollahalli and armed with deadly weapons like club and iron road picked 4 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused him in filthy language and in the name of caste and assaulted him with deadly weapons like club, wooden club and iron rod. The accused persons have also assaulted C.W.2, C.W.7, C.W.8, C.W.9, C.W.10, C.W.11, C.W.12, C.W.13 and C.W.14 and caused them injuries. Thereafter while C.W.1 complainant Chikka Venkatesh was proceeding in his Maruthi Car bearing No. KA- 03-MG-292 with an intention to lodge the complaint to the police against accused and when he reached near Bairathi Bande Cross, at that time the accused persons who came in Qualis vehicle bearing No. KA-05-P-9856 and KA-06-Z-6033 intercepted the vehicle of the complainant and assaulted him with iron road on his head and voluntarily caused him grievous injuries. The accused persons also assaulted C.W.8 Narasimhappa with iron rod and caused grievous hurt to C.W.8 by dashing against his face with head and as a result C.W.8 lost his two teeth. The accused persons also assaulted C.W.2, C.W.7, C.W.9 to C.W.14 with hands, clubs and rods and voluntarily caused them simple hurt. C.W.1, C.W.2, C.W.7 to C.W.14 have taken treatment in Sri Vijayalakshmi Hospital. Based on the first information statement lodged by 5 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 C.W.1 while taking treatment in Sri Vijayalakshmi Hospital, Kothanur police registered the case in Crime No.78/2010 and sent FIR to the court. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and visited the place of incident, conducted the mahazar and seized the material objects, iron rod, wooden club, stones, which was used for commission of the offences and also seized the glass pieces of the car. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer seized the bloodstain clothes of C.W.1 by conducting the panchanama. The Investigating Officer after collecting all the materials on completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 for the aforesaid offences.
5. On 2.8.2012 charges are framed against the accused No.1 to 7 for he offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 326, 326, 325, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
6. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution 20 witnesses have been examined as P.W. 1 to P.W. 20 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 are marked. M.O.1 to M.O.7 are marked. During the course of cross-examination of PW.4 document Ex.D1, D1(a) are marked. In the cross- examination of PW.9 document Ex.D2 is marked. In the cross-examination of PW.12 document ExD3 marked. In the cross-examination of PW17 document Ex.D4 is marked. After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, on 30.11.2018, the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused persons have denied all the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. The accused persons have not lead in defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused and perused the entire case papers.
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case there is sufficient evidence against the accused in respect of the charges levelled against them. She argued that 7 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 P.W.1 complainant and injured has deposed in consonance with his complaint averments. She argued that all the witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.13 have supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.14 doctor who has given treatment to the injured has supported the case of the prosecution. She argued that P.W.1 and P.W.8 have suffered grievous injuries. She submitted that P.W.6 mahazar witness, P.W.17 and P.W.20 Investigating Officers have supported the case of the prosecution. She submitted that the wound certificate issued by the doctor with regarding to the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.8 shows that P.W.1 and P.W.8 have suffered grievous injures. She argued that other injured have suffered simple injuries. She submitted that the minor discrepancies in the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.12, P.W.16 will not take away the case of the prosecution. She submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.12 and 16 are corroborated with each other and their evidence is also corroborated with medical evidence and the evidence of Investigating Officer which would make it clear that the accused persons have committed the offences. She submitted that the defence taken by the 8 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 accused that due to political enimity false case is foisted against them is not believable. She thus prays for convicting the accused for the above said charges.
9. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 7 submitted that a false complaint is lodged against the accused persons. She argued that there is no corroboration in the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.7 to P.W.13 and their oral evidence is not corroborating with the oral evidence of P.W.14 doctor. She argued that according to the case of the prosecution, the incident was occurred in two places, first incident was occurred near Samudaya Bhavana, second incident was occurred near Bairathi Bande Cross. She argued that Bairathibande Cross and Alfa College are two different places. But the witnesses have deposed that the incident was occurred near Alfa College. She argued that there is change of place. She argued that mere marking of documents Ex.P17 and P18 report regarding the caste of P.W.1 and accused are not sufficient to prove their caste. She argued that non- examination of Tahasildar who gave certificate is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She submitted that in this case independent eye witness. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have turned 9 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 hostile to the case of the prosecution and independent mahazar witnesses have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. She submitted that all other witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.7 to P.W.12 are all relatives. P.W.17 to P.W.20 are official witnesses. P.W.14 is the doctor. She argued that there was a Grama Panchayath Election and the election result was declared on 17.5.2010. In that election accused No.1 became the member of the panchayath and the complainant was defeated in that election. P.W.2 wife of P.W.1 also defeated in the election. She argued that due to political rivalry the complainant has filed false complaint against the accused. P.W.2, P.W.3 were not eye witnesses to the first incident. She submitted that the oral evidence of P.W.10 cannot be considered as he has not tendered himself for cross-examination. She argued that the treated doctor is not examined in this case. The oral evidence of P.W.14 who has not treated the injured is not believable. She submitted that X-Ray Report and X-Ray films are not produced to show that P.W.1 has sustained fractural injuries. She submitted that there is no clear evidence to show that P.W.8 has sustained grievous injuries and there was loss of 10 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 two teeth. She submitted that the ingredients of Sec. 320 of IPC are not attracted to this case. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 326 of IPC. She submitted that in the remand application the Investigating Officer has mentioned that for trivial grounds the incident was occurred. She argued that the uncorroborated oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.7 to P.W.9, P.W.11 to P.W.13 are creates doubt about their version. Their oral evidence is also not corroborating with the medical evidence. She argued that P.W.7 in his cross-examination of stated that he has given statement before the police between 10 AM and 11 AM. That itself shows that the prosecution has suppressed first information statement. She submitted that the seizure of M.O.1 to 6 also not proved by the prosecution. She argued that the damages to the vehicle i.e., car of the complainant is also not proved by the prosecution. She submitted that there is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused persons have committed offences. She submitted that there are several criminal cases and counter cases. Due to the political rivalry the complainant has filed false complaint. Thus, she prays for acquittal of the accused. 11 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 In support of her contentions she has relied on following decisions: -
(1) AIR 1971 SC 1865 (2) 1979 CRL.L.J. 236 (3) 1971 CRL.L.J. 498 (4) AIR 1883 SC 66 (5) 2000 (2) Crimes 137 (SC) (6) 1992(2) Crimes 30 H.P. (7) 2003 SCC (Cri) 751 (8) Crl.P. No. 24/2019 dt. 9.1.1990 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
10. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my determination:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.5.2010 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused No.1 to 7 formed unlawful assembly with common object of assaulting C.W.1 and other witnesses and were armed with deadly weapons like wooden club, iron rod and committed rioting and again on the same day when C.W.1 was proceeding towards 12 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the police station and came near Bairathibande, accused No.1 to 7 formed unlawful assembly and came in Qualis vehicle stopped the vehicle of the C.W.1 complainant and armed with deadly weapons like wooden club, iron rod and stone committed rioting and thereby accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused No.1 to 7 were members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object voluntarily caused grievous hurt by assaulting C.W.1 with wooden club, iron rod and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 326 r/w 149 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object voluntarily caused 13 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 grievous hurt to C.W.8 Narasimha by assaulting him with iron rod and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences punishable u/s 326 r/w 149 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused on the above said date, time and place accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object voluntarily caused grievous hurt to C.W.8 by dashing against his face with the head resulting in loss of teeth and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 325 r/w 149 IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons on the above said date, time and place accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W.1, C.W.2, C.W.7 to C.W.14 by assaulting them with hands and thereby 14 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 committed offences punishable u/s 323 r/w 149 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons on the above said date, time and place accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W.1, C.W.2, C.W.7 to C.W.14 by assaulting them with wooden clubs and rods and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 324 r/w 149 of IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons on the above said date, time and place accused No.1 to 7 being the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object accused persons who are not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing very well that C.W.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste abused him in filthy language taking his caste as "Madigana bida bedi" and insulted and humiliated within public view and 15 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 thereby the accused persons have committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
8) What order?
11. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative Point No.2:- In the Negative Point No.3:- In the Negative Point No.4:- In the Negative Point No.5:- In the Affirmative Point No.6:- In the Affirmative Point No.7:- In the Affirmative Point No.8:- As per final order for the following REASONS
12. POINT No.1 to 7:- These points are inter connected with each other, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts I would like to take all these points together for discussion.
13. P.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh is the injured and complainant in this case. He has deposed that the accused are residing in his village. He states that he was member of the 16 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 Kannur Grama Panchayath till 2010. Now the accused No.1 is the member. He states that he belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste. The accused persons are not belongs to ScheduledCaste or Scheduled Tribe. He has deposed that when he was the member of Grama Panchayath, the Samudaya Bhavana was under construction. That on 18th October when he along with his son Punith levelling the mud near Samudaya Bhavana at that time accused No.1 Muniraju came there and raised objections and assaulted him with hands. Then all the accused joined together and assaulted him with wooden club and abused him in the name of caste by saying "Madiga Nanna Magane yava karanakke neenu illi kelasa maduthiya". He has deposed that the police came to the place of incident and asked him to lodge the complaint. Hence, he along with C.W.8 Narasimhappa C.W.11 Rajappa, C.W.15 Thimmaiah, C.W.10 Narayanappa were proceeding in a car near Alfa Engineering College, then the accused persons who came in Qualis vehicle dashed against his vehicle and hence he stopped the car. At that time accused No.4 Devaraj assaulted him with iron rod on his head and caused him bleeding injuries. The remaining accused assaulted him with wooden 17 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 club, stone. Accused No.2 assaulted C.W.8 as a result of which two tooth of C.W.8 fallen down. The accused persons also assaulted C.W.10 Narayanappa. He states that his wife C.W.2 Suma and other witnesses, Venkata Lakshmi, came to the place of incident at that time the accused persons assaulted them and caused them injuries. They were shifted to the Vijayalakshmi Hospital and when he was taking treatment in Vijayalakshmi Hospital, the police reduced his oral complaint into writing as per Ex.P1. He has identified Ex.P2 photos of his damaged car. He has identified M.O.1 Shirt, M.O.2 Baniyan. He has identified M.O.3 iron rod, M.O.4 Wooden Club, M.O.5 two stones used by the accused for commission of the offence and also identified M.O.6 glass pieces of car. During the course of his cross-examination of by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.1 has admitted the suggestion that till 15.7.2010 he and his wife were the members of the Grama Panchayath. He has admitted the suggestion that one Smt. Manjamma won the election against his wife and accused No.1 won against him. He admitted the suggestion that the Grama Panchayath election result was declared on 17.5.2010. He has admitted the suggestion that 18 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the case in Crime No.80/2010 of Kothanur Police station registered against him and his brother Dodda Venkatesh and others wherein it is alleged that they have assaulted Narasimhamurthy with iron rod and wooden club. He has deposed that as the accused persons dashed the Qualis Car against his car as a result of which Narasimha sustained injuries and his two tooth were broken. He has stated that his wife was not came along with him to the Samudaya Bhavana.
He states that all the injured persons had taken treatment in Vijayalakshmi Hospital. P.W.1 has denied all other suggestions made to him.
12. P.W.2. Smt. Suma is an eye witness and injured. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.2 has deposed that at about two years back, at about 11 AM when she was in her house her husband P.W.1 went near Samudaya Bhavana in order to do the work at that time somebody told her regarding the galata. Hence, she went near the Samudaya Bhavana. At that time the accused persons pulled her and other witnesses and assaulted them and abused them in filthy language and in the name of caste. Hence, thereafter they were on the way to police station in order to lodge the complaint. She states that she along with 19 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 her relatives Munirathna, Munithayamma, Sarasa and others were went in separate vehicle. When they reached near Bairathi Bande, they found the car of her husband. The accused were there in that place and the accused No.4 Devaraj assaulted her husband with iron road on his head. She has deposed that all the accused persons pulled them and assaulted them and given life threat to them. Hence, she has sustained injuries on her right hand. Her husband sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Thereafter they went to police station and her husband was taken to hospital. During the course of her cross-examination of by the learned counsel for accused P.W.2 admitted the suggestion that she was member of Kannur Grama Panchayath prior to 15.7.2010. She has admitted the suggestion that Smt. Manjamma won the election and elected as Grama Panchayath Member. She has admitted the suggestion that as they were defeated in the election, in order to trouble the accused they have lodged false complaint. P.W.2 has denied all other suggestions made to her.
13. P.W.3 Muniswamappa has deposed that at about 10 AM the quarrel taken place near Samudaya Bhavana between 20 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the accused and the complainant. Hence, the complainant and others went in a car in order to lodge the complaint. He has deposed that by hearing the news about the galata when he was proceeding near the bus stand of bande, at that time he has seen the accused assaulting the complainant and others. He has deposed that complainant Chikka Venkatesh has sustained grievous injuries on his head. The witness Narasimhappa has sustained grievous injuries and others have also sustained injuries. During the course of his cross- examination of by the learned counsel for accused P.W.3 has denied all the suggestions made to him. He has denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed any such incident.
14. P.W.4 Yallappa has deposed that on 18.5.2010 at about 10.30 AM when he was in his house, on hearing the news of galata he went near the Samudaya Bhavana and seen the accused persons assaulting C.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh. He has deposed that thereafter P.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh while proceeding in a car in order to lodge the complaint near Alfa College, the accused who came in Qualis vehicle intercepted the complainant's car and assaulted the complainant and reached with iron rod on his head. He states that the accused 21 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 persons also assaulted Narasimhappa. Smt. Suma and others and as a result of which two tooth of Narasimhappa were broken. The accused persons abused them in the name of caste as "Madiga nanna makkalu" and also gave life thereat to them. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.4 has admitted the suggestion that his father had given evidence in the murder case registered against accused No.1, 3, 6 and others. He has admitted the suggestion that the case in Crime No.79/2010 registered by Kothanur police pending against him. He has denied the suggestion that on 18.5.2010 he along with P.W.1 and others beat the accused No.6 near Samudaya Bhavana. He has denied of giving any such statement before the police as per Ex.D1(a). He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
15. P.W.5 Chandrashekar is the eye witness is completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he has not seen the incident and he has not given any statement before the police. Even though the learned Special Public Prosecutor has cross-examined him in detail, nothing is elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 22 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 has denied of giving any such statement before the police as per Ex.P3.
16. P.W.6 Narayanappa has deposed that when he was near his house he heard about the incident and went near Samudaya Bhavana. In that place, the accused and complainant quarrelling each other. He has deposed that thereafter he along with P.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh was proceeding towards the police station in order to lodge the complaint. When they reached near the college, some other vehicle intercepted and car and stopped the accused pulled P.W.1 from the car and accused No.2 assaulted P.W.1 with iron rod. Nothing happened further. Since P.W.6 has partly supported the case of the prosecution at the instance of learned Special Public Prosecutor P.W.6 has treated hostile and permitted to cross-examine. During the course of his cross- examination of by the learned Special Public Prosecutor P.W.6 has denied the suggestion that the accused persons assaulted him and others and caused them injuries. He has denied the suggestion that the accused persons assaulted Narasimhappa and as a result of which his two tooth were broken. P.W.6 has denied of giving any such statement before the police as per 23 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 Ex.P4. P.W.4 has not cross-examined by learned counsel for accused.
17. P.W.7 C. Munikrishna has deposed that at about 3 years back at about 10.30 to 11 hours he came to know that there was quarrel taken place near Samudaya Bhavana. Hence, he visited to that place at that time the quarrel was ended. Thereafter when they were proceeding towards police station and came near Bairathi Bande the accused persons came in two Qualis vehicle and stopped the car and pulled P.W.1 out from the car and assaulted him on his head. When the accused persons were quarrelling with P.W.1, the police came to that place. By seeing the police van the accused fled away from the spot. At that time police succeeded in catching two accused. He has deposed that the accused persons have also assaulted Narasimhamurthy and Muniraju and caused them injuries. He states that his father-in-law P.W.1 has taken treatment in Vijayalakshmi Hospital. On the following day of this incident, the police visited the place of incident and drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P5 and seized M.O.3 to M.O.6 in the place of incident in his presence. He has deposed that he has taken the bloodstained shirt and banian of P.W.1 to the police 24 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 station, then the police seized M.O.1 shirt, M.O.2 banian by conducting the panchanama as per Ex.P6. During the course of his cross-examination by the defence, P.W.7 has deposed that the police recorded his statement on the date of incident between 10 AM to 11 AM. He has deposed that P.W.1 was not in the state of talking. He states that he went to the hospital but did not take any treatment. P.W.7 has denied all other suggestions made to him. He has admitted the suggestion that wife of P.W.1 lost the election and accused No.1 won the election. He has denied the suggestion that he has not seen the incident on 18.5.2010.
18. P.W.8 Narasimhappa has deposed that at about 3 years back at about 10.30 to 11 AM he was sitting near the Samudaya Bhavana, Water Tank. At that time the accused persons quarrelling with P.W.1. He states that thereafter when they were proceeding towards police station and came near Chikka Bairathi Bande, the accused persons restrained them by stopping the car and assaulted P.W.1 with stone and with iron rods. The accused persons also assaulted him as a result which his two teeth were broken. The accused persons have also assaulted to Rachappa, Yallappa, Suma. He has deposed 25 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 that as he sustained injuries he was took treatment in Vijayalakshmi Hospital as in patient for 10 days. During the course of his cross-examination of by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.8 has admitted the suggestion that as there was election, the police were there near the Samudaya Bhavana. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
19. P.W.9 Yallappa has deposed that at about 3 years back at about 10.30 to 11 AM when he was near his house he came to know about the quarrel taking place near the Samudaya Bhavana, hence he went to that place. He states that the accused persons assaulted P.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh with iron rod and clubs. When he went to pacify the quarrel the accused persons also assaulted him and caused him injuries near his eye. He has deposed that when they were proceeding towards police station near Bairathi Bande the accused persons who came in Qualis vehicle abused P.W.1 in the name of caste as Madiga Jathiyavane and also give life threat to him. He states that they were taken treatment in Vijayalakshmi Hospital.
20. P.W.10 Rajappa has deposed that at about 3 years back at about 10.30 to 11.00 AM when he was sitting near 26 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 Samudhaya Bhavana accused persons quarrelled with P.W.1 Chikka Venkatesh. When they were proceeding near Byrathi Bande at that time the accused persons who came in Qualis vehicle restrained P.W.1 from his further movement and accused persons assaulted him with wooden club, rod and stones and caused head injuries. Accused persons have also caused injuries on eye of Yallappa and broken the tooth of Narasimhappa by assaulting him. He states that he has sustained injuries on his right hand due to assault made by the accused. P.W.10 has not tendered himself for cross- examination of. Hence, his oral evidence cannot be considered.
21. P.W.11 Muniraju is the injured and eye witness. He has supported the case of the prosecution. He states that on hearing the galata noise he went near Saudhaya Bhavan. At that time he saw the accused persons assaulting P.W.1 with rod and clubs. He intervened to pacify the quarrel. At that time accused persons assaulted him on his left hand. The accused persons also assaulted to Smt. Suma and Chikkaa Munithayamma. When P.W.1 was proceeding towards police station on the way near Byrathi Bande accused persons who came in Qualis vehicle restrained P.W.1 from further 27 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 movement of his car and assaulted him with club, rod and stones and caused him head injuries. The accused persons also abused P.W.1 in the name of caste by abusing as "Madigaranu Hodeyabeku". During the course of cross- examination of P.W.11 he has denied all the suggestions made to him. He has deposed that he has not given statement before the police.
22. P.W.12 Muniyappa has deposed that at about 3 years back when he along with P.W.1 and others went in order to construct the Samudhaya Bhavana at that time accused persons assaulted P.W.1 with wooden club. When he intervened to pacify the quarrel then the accused persons also assaulted him with hands. The accused persons also assaulted with hands to Rajappa, Suma, Dodda Venkatesh, Yallappa and Munithayamma. At the time of proceeding in car towards police station, then again the accused persons who came in Qualis vehicle restrained them and assaulted the complainant with rod and abused him in the name of caste. During the course of his cross-examination of by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.12 has deposed that P.W.10 is elder brother. He has admitted the suggestion that P.W.1, 28 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 P.W.2, P.W.4, pw10 and P.W.18 are his relatives. He has admitted the suggestion that he is accused in Crime No.105/2011, 98/2010 and 80/2010 and the complainant in all these cases are from the group of the accused. He has denied of giving statement before the police as per Ex.D3. He has denied the suggestion that the incident had already taken place when he reached the place. He has denied the suggestion that no incident taken place at Alfa College. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
23. P.W.13 is the mahazar witness of seizure of the vehicle is turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that in his presence the police have not conducted the mahazar and not seized any vehicle. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.13 in detail. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.13 has denied the entire contents of the document Ex.P7. Nothing is elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
24. P.W.14 is the Dr. Rangarajan visiting Medical Officer of Vijayalakshmi Hospital deposed that on 18.5.2010 he has examined injured (1) Chikka Venkatesh (2) Narasimhappa (3) 29 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 Yallappa (4) Nagamma (5) Lakshmamma (6) Muniraju (7) Rajappa, (8) Narayanappa. He has deposed that on examination of Chikka Venkatesh he found the following injuries (1) Tendon over middle finger of left hand, (2) Pain and tendon over the chest and lacerated wound over right frontal region and forehead. He has issued Ex.P8 wound certificate. He opined that these injuries can be possible assault with wooden club or rod. He has deposed that on examination of injured Narasimhappa he found (1) Loosening the third molar tooth, (2) Lacerated wound over left thigh. He opined that injury No.1 grievous in nature and injury No.2 simple in nature. He has issued Ex.P9 Wound Certificate. He has deposed that on examination of Yellappa, he found (1) Tenderness over the left side of face, (2) Pain and tenderness over left hand, (3) Contusion over the right knee joint. He has issued Ex.P10 Wound Certificate. He has opined that the injuries sustained by Narasimhappa and Yellappa are possible if assaulted with wooden club. He has deposed that on examination of injured Nagamma he found contusion over left knee and left chest. He has issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P11. He states that on examination of Lakshmamma he 30 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 found pain and tenderness over right hand and right ear. He has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P12. He states that on examination of Muniraju he found contusion over his neck and right elbow. He has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P13. He has deposed that on examination of injured Rajappa he found abrasion over right elbow. He has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P14. He has deposed that on examination of Narayanappa he found tenderness over left hand. He has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P15. He has opined that the injuries sustained by Yellappa, Nagamma, Lakshmamma, Muniraju, Rajappa and Narayanappa are all simple in nature which can be caused due to assault with wooden club. During the course of his cross-examination of by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.14 has admitted the suggestion that he has not produced the X-Ray Report and X-Ray Film to show that Chikka Venkatesh and Narasimhappa have sustained grievous injuries. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.14, the documents Ex.P19 to Ex.P28 are marked. P.W.14 has deposed that he did not treat P.W.1. Dr. Prashanth treated him. He states that he know about the details based on only case sheet. He admitted the suggestion that the injury No.2 of 31 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 P.W.1 can be pretended too and injury No.3 can be caused due to fall on rough surface. He has admitted the suggestion that C.W.8 Narasimhappa has not received injuries on mandibles. He has admitted the suggestion that in the MLC Register only one injury is mentioned with respect to Narasimhappa. P.W.14 has denied all other suggestions made to him.
25. P.W.15 Appaiappa is the witness to the document Ex.P6 mahazar. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed that the police called him to the police station and took his thumb impression. He do not know whether the police have seized the clothes. Since P.W.15 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined him. During the course of cross-examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor, P.W.15 has admitted the suggestion that on 19.5.2010, Munikrishna produced the bloodstained shirt and banian of Chikka Venkatesh before the police and the same was seized in his presence by conducting panchanama as per Ex.P6. He has identified M.O.1 and M.O.2. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.15 has admitted the suggestion 32 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 that Munikrishna has not produced any clothes in his presence before the police.
26. P.W.16 Thimmaiah has deposed that one Krishnappa produced the bloodstained clothes of Chikka Venkatesh, at that time the police took his signature on Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.16 in detail. In his cross-examination P.W.16 has admitted the suggestion that on 18.5.2010 the police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P5 as the place of incident was shown by Munikrishna and seized M.O.3 to M.O.6 in his presence. He has admitted the suggestion that on 19.5.2010 Kothanur police summoned him to the police station and seized M.O.1 and 2 bloodstained clothes of Chikka Venkatesh as Munikrishna was produced the same before the police. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.16 has denied the suggestion that no such bloodstained clothes were seized in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that the police have not conducted any spot mahazar and seizure mahazar in his presence.
33 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
27. P.W.17 was working as Dy.S.P., of Sampigehalli Sub- Division has deposed that on 18.5.2010 he took up the case file from PSI for further investigation and on the same day he visited the place of incident and conducted Ex.P5 panchanama in the presence of panchas as the place of incident was shown by C.W.7 Munikrishna and he seized M.O.3 to M.O.6. He has deposed that he visited to the Vijayalakshmi Hospital and enquired the injured. He has recorded the statements of C.W.2 to C.W.14. He has seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 on 19.5.2010 by conducting Ex.P6 panchanama as these clothes were produced by C. Munikrishna. He has deposed that on 18.5.2010 he was arrested the accused Devaraj and Suresh as they were produced by PSI and his staff before him. He has deposed that on 23.6.2010, the accused persons appeared before him and produced the copy of anticipatory bail order. Hence, he arrested the accused and released them on bail. He states that he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused Bhaskar as per Ex.P16 and as the accused Bhaskar lead him and panchas to his house and shown the vehicle bearing No. KA- 05-P-9856 he has seized the same by conducting Ex.P7 panchanama. He has identified M.O.7 Qualis vehicle bearing 34 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 No. KA-05-P-9856 produced by the accused. He has deposed that on 25.6.2010 he has received Ex.P8 to P15 wound certificates and on 13.7.2010 he has received Ex.P17 and P18 report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of the complainant and accused. During the course of his cross-examination of by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.17 has denied all the suggestions made to him.
28. P.W.18 Munithayamma is the mahazar witness has deposed that the police came to the place of incident and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P5 and seized M.O.3 to M.O.6. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused she has denied the suggestion that as C.W.1 and C.W.2 are her relatives, hence, in order to help them she has given false evidence.
29. P.W.19 Krishnamurthy was the Police Constable of Kothanur police station has deposed that 18.5.2010 ACP was deputed him and PSI to trace out the accused. They apprehended the accused Devaraj and Suresh near Kallahalli Bus Stand and brought them to the police station and produced them before the SHO., at about 10.30 PM. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for 35 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the accused nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version.
30. P.W.20 Kumaraswamy T.R., was the PSI of Kothanur Police station has deposed that on 18.5.2010 he has received the information that injured Chikka Venkatesh with history of assault taking treatment in Vijayalakshmi Hospital. Hence, he visited to the Vijayalakshmi Hospital and in the presence of the doctor recorded the first information statement as per Ex.P1 and brought the same to the police station and on the basis of Ex.P1 complaint he has registered the case in Crime No. 78/2010 and sent Ex.P29 FIR to the court. He states that he has given the case file to C.W.25 for further investigation. On the same day C.W.25 deputed him and other staff by name Manjunath and Krishnamurthy in order to trace out the accused. They apprehended accused No.4 Devaraj and accused No.2 Suresh near N.G. Gollahalli bus stand and brought them to the police station and produced before ACP at 10.30 PM and submitted his report as per Ex.P30. During the course of his cross-examination by learned counsel for accused P.W.20 has denied the suggestion that there is interpolation in Ex.P1. He has denied the suggestion that two paras in 2nd 36 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 page Ex.P1 subsequently added. P.W.20 has denied all other suggestions made to him.
31. Based on the above evidence, it has to be seen if the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
32. PW-1 in his examination in chief has deposed that he belongs to Adi Karnataka caste which comes under Schedule caste. The accused persons not belongs to schedule castes or schedule tribes. He has deposed that he and accused persons are of same village. These versions of the PW-1 is not tested in his cross examination. The oral evidence of PW-1 regarding his caste is remained unchallenged as during cross examination of PW-1 no questions or suggestions asked him denying his caste. Ex.P.17 is the certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, Krishnarajapura with regarding the caste of PW-1 Chikka Venkatesh. Ex.P.18 is the certificate issued by the Tahasildar regarding the caste of accused. In Ex.P.17 the Tahasildar mentioned that Chikka Venkatesh belongs to Adi Karnataka caste. In Ex.P.18 it is mentioned that the accused persons belongs to Golla caste. These documents Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 are marked though PW-17 investigation officers. 37 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 During the course of cross examination of PW.17 no questions or suggestions were made to PW-17 denying these documents Ex.P.17 and 18. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that since author of Ex.P.17 and 18 are not examined the documents Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 are not proved. She has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 1865 in Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others V/s Yelmarti Satyam and others to contend that "Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. She argued that the father name of complainant is also not tallies with Ex.P.17. I have gone through the cited decision. In my humble view this cited decision can be distinguished on facts. In this case PW-1 who is the best witness to say about his caste deposed that he belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste. His chief examination regarding caste is not tested in his cross examination. The accused persons have not taken any such defence that PW-1 has not belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste. It is also not the defence of the accused is that they are belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. On perusal of oral evidence of PW-2 (wife of PW-1) it would go to show that she has contested the Grama Panchayath election 38 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 under the category of Schedule Caste. It is not in dispute that P.W.1and P.W.2 both were contested the Grama Panchayath election in the year 2010. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW- 8, PW-9, PW-11 and PW12 have deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1 in the name of caste. In the cross examination of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-11 and PW-12 also the accused persons have not taken any defence that PW-1 is not belongs to Schedule Caste. Under such circumstances their oral evidence which is supported by the document Ex.P.17 certificate issued by the Tahasildar shows that PW-1 belongs to Adi Karnataka schedule caste. The oral evidence of these witness which is supported by the document Ex.P.18 shows that accused No.1 to 7 belongs to Golla Community. Thus, it is established that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused No.1 to 7 do not belongs to any scheduled caste or Schedule Tribe.
33. PW-1 is the injured and complainant, pw-2 is the injured and eye witness PW.3, PW.4, PW.7 are the eye witnesses, PW.8, PW.9, PW.10, pw-11 and pw-12 are injured and eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW-6 who is eye witness and injured partly 39 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 supported the case of the prosecution. PW.5 is eye witness, pw-13 mahazar witness have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.15 is the witness to Ex.P.6, PW-16 is the witness to Ex.P.5 and Ex.P6 mahazar have partly supported the case of the prosecution. PW-18 is the witness to Ex.P.5 spot and seizer of MO.3 to MO.6 has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-14 is the Doctor, PW.17 is the investigation officer, PW-19 is the police constable. PW-20 is the PSI who registered the case are all supported the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW-6 is remained unchallenged as the learned counsel for the accused has not cross examined PW-6.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramasanjeev V/s State of Bihar (AIR 1996 SC 326) and decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in 1996 Crl. L.J 848 enunciating the principles governing the assessing of evidence eye witness they are:
1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe his presence at the scene of occurrence or 40 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 ensure situation as would makes it possible for him to witness the facts deposed by him.
2. Whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in his evidence.
Applying these principles to pw-2, pw-3, pw-4, pw-6, pw-7, pw-8, pw-9, pw-11, pw-12 whether their presence in the scene of offence is possible or not is to be considered first. PW.2, pw-8, pw-9, pw,10, pw-11 and pw-12 are all injured and eye witnesses. PW.3, pw-4 pw-7 are eye witnesses. They have clearly deposed regarding this presence is the place of incident. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, pw- 3, pw-4, pw-7, pw-8, pw-9, pw-11 and pw-12 nothing is elicited from this mouth to show that they were not present at the time of incident. PW-6 is the eye witness and injured partly supported the case of the prosecution. PW-6 has deposed regarding the accused persons quarreled with pw-1 near Samudhaya Bhavan and also quarreled with PW-1 near college when pw-1 was proceeding toward Police Station. PW- 6 has clearly deposed that when he along with PW-1 proceeding towards Police Station and reached near college the accused persons who came in vehicle stopped the car and 41 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the accused persons pulled PW-1 out of car and accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with iron rod. This version of PW.6 is remained unchallenged. PW.6 is not cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused.
35. It is now settled principle of law is that merely because the witnessed turned hostile their evidence cannot be discarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 SAR (Cal) 382 Paramajith Singh @ Pamma V/s State of Uttarkhand held that the deposition of hostile witnesses can be relied upon at least upto the extent they supported the case of the prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birju V/s State of Madhyapradesh reported in (2014)3 SCC 421 held that the evidence of hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole and relevant parts there of which are admissible in law can be used either by the prosecution or by the defence. In the present case even though PW-6 treated as hostile, he has supported the case to the extent that accused persons quarreled with PW.1 near Samudhaya Bhavan and also quarreled with PW.1 near college when they proceeding towards police station. PW.6 has also deposed that the accused persons pulled PW.1 out 42 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 from car and accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with iron rod. The oral evidence of PW.6 is corroborating with the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, PW.7 to PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12. The presence of PW.2 to PW.4, PW.6 to PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12 at the place of incident cannot be doubted because nothing is elicited from their mouth to discard their evidence and doubt about their presence at the place of incident.
36. The learned counsel for the accused argued about the delay in registering the case and delay in sending FIR to the court. She relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 355 in Rajeevan and another V/s State of Kerala. I have gone through this cited decision. There is no dispute regarding the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this cited decision. In the present case there is absolutely no delay in lodging the first information to the police, immediately after incident PW.1 and other injured were shifted to Vijaya Lakshmi Hospital for treatment. The first incident near Samudhaya Bhavan occurred on 18.5.2010 at about 10.30 AM. While proceeding to the police station near Byrathi Bande cross road second incident was occurred. PW.14 Dr. 43 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 Rangarajan who examined the injured has clearly deposed that on 18.5.2010 at about 1.00.PM. he was examined 1) Chikkavenkatesh (PW.1), 2) Narasimhappa (PW.8), 3) Yallappa (PW.9), 4) Nagamma, 5) Laxmamma, 6) Muniraju (PW.11) 7) Rajappa (PW.10) 8) Narayanappa (PW.6). PW.20 who was working as PSI., of Kothanur Police Station who received the information immediately visited to Vijaya Lakshmi Hospital and recorded the first information statement of PW.1 as per Ex.P.1 and based on which he has registered case in Crime No.78/2010 at 5.15 p.m. and there after sent Ex.P.29 FIR to the court. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Ex.P.29 FIR reached the court on 19- 05-2010 at about 10.15.a.m. Hence, there is delay. This argument of the learned counsel for the accused is not acceptable. During the course of cross examination of PW.20 nothing is elicited from his mouth regarding the document Ex.P.29 FIR. More than that there is no such abnormal delay in reaching FIR to the court. In Ex.P.1 first information statement it self the complainant/injured PW.1 has mentioned the names of the accused No.1 to 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is that 44 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 there is interpolation in Ex.P1 complaint is not acceptable. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to show that his statement was later altered by the police in order to fix the accused. Ex.P.29 FIR is registered against all the accused No.1 to 7. PW.14 doctor who has issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P8 to P15 has mentioned the names of accused in these wound certificates and also deposed regarding the history. Hence there was no chance to add the names of the accused subsequently. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that PW.7 has deposed that he has given statement before the police between 10 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. She argued that the first complaint which was lodged by PW.7 conveniently suppressed by the prosecution. This argument of the leaned counsel for the accused is not acceptable. On the basis of stray sentence in the oral evidence of PW.7 that he has given statement between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00.am. the entire evidence cannot be doubted.
37. PW.1 has deposed in consonance with his complaint averments. PW.1 has clearly deposed that the accused persons assaulted him with wooden club and abused him in 45 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the name of caste near Samudhaya Bhavan. He has also deposed that when he along with PW.8 Narasimhappa, PW.10 Rajappa, PW.6 Narayanappa, C.W.15 Thimmaiah were proceeding in a car in order to lodge the complaint and when they reached near Alfa College then the accused persons who came in Qualis Vehicle stopped the car and assaulted him with iron rod, club and stones on his head and caused him bleeding injuries. He has deposed that accused persons have also assaulted PW.8, PW.6, PW.2; Venkatalaxmi and other witnesses and caused them injuries. The oral evidence of PW.1 is supported by oral evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12. In this case PW.1, PW.2, PW.8, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11 are all injured witnesses. Their oral evidence is also supported by PW.3. PW.4.
38. The learned counsel for the accused argued that non examination of the independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She argued that independent witnesses PW.5, PW.6 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. She submitted that other witnesses PW.1 to 46 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 PW.4, PW.7 to PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12 are all relatives, hence their oral evidence is not reliable. She has cited decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which is reported in 1979 Crl.L.J. 236. I have gone through the cited decision. Merely because PW.1 to PW.4, PW.7 to PW.12 are relatives their evidence cannot be discarded on that ground. It is settled principle of law is that the evidence of close relative witnesses shall be scrutinized very carefully. There is no dispute that there are certain minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, PW.7 to PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12 with regarding to first incident and second incident occurred on 18.05.2010. In my opinion these discrepancies did not amount to contradictions which go to the root of the case of the prosecution. From the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, PW.6 to PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12 it is established that the accused no.1 to 7 formed an unlawful assembly with intention to causing hurt to PW.1 and in the said process all the accused No.1 to 7 participated in the commission of offence by injuring PW.1, PW.8, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11. In my humble view decision cited by the learned counsel for the 47 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 accused which is reported in 1979.Crl.L.J.236 can be distinguished on facts.
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh-Vs Lekh Raj and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3916, has held that 'Minor discrepancies or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful".
40. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case of Narayana Chetanram Chaudhary and another reported in AIR 2000 SC 3352, has held that "Minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses is of no consequence".
41. In the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar V/s State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1999 SC 3544, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non- 48 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach or judicial scrutiny".
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhagirath and others reported in 1999(5) SCC 96, has held that "It is impossible in any criminal trial to prove all elements with scientific precision. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of evidence but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of entire evidence if the judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubts." In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the court need not concentrate on the minor discrepancies when there is cogent evidence to prove the case of the prosecution.
49 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
43. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is change of place of incident. She argued that Bairathi bande is entirely different from that of Alfa College. She argued that Ex.P5 mahazar was drawn at Alfa College. She argued that the document Ex.P5 is not proved by the prosecution and no reliance can be given to Ex.P5 with regard to the 2nd incident. She has relied upon decision of Hon'ble High of Himachal Pradesh, reported Crimes 1992 2 30.
44. I have gone through the oral evidence of mahazar witness and also gone through oral evidence of eye witnesses and injured. P.W.1 injured and the complainant has deposed that the 2nd incident was occurred in Alfa College Road. P.W.1 has identified M.O.3 to M.O.5 material objects which were used by the accused in commission of the offence and also identified M.O.1 and M.O.2 clothes belongs to him and M.O.6 glass pieces of car. P.W.7 is the eye witness and mahazar witnesses to the documents Ex.P5 and P6 has deposed that the police have conducted Ex.P5 mahazar in his presence and seized M.O.3 to M.O.6. P.W.16 Thimmaiah even though in his examination-in-chief turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, but during the course of cross-examination of by 50 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the learned Special Public Prosecutor he has admitted the contents of the document Ex.P5 and also admitted the suggestion that in his presence the police have seized M.O.3 to M.O.6. P.W.18 Munithayamma who is signatory to Ex.P5 mahazar supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that in her presence the police have conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P5 and seized M.O.3 to M.O.6. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.18 nothing is elicited from her mouth to discard her version. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.17 and P.W.18 nothing is elicited from their mouth to show that there were any change of place of incident. P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the mahazar also supported the case of the prosecution by stating that on 18.5.2010 he visited to the place of incident and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P5 as the place of incident was shown by C.W.7 Munikrishna and seized M.O.3, M.O.6. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.17 also nothing is elicited from his mouth to show that there was change of place of incident. P.W.17 in his cross- examination has deposed that he has conducted the mahazar in the cross road which leading towards Alfa College. The 51 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is that the Bairthi Bande and Alfa College are two different places. No doubt it may be two different places but, it is the specific case of the prosecution is that when P.W.1 and other witnesses were proceeding in a car in order to lodged the complaint and when they reached near Alfa College the accused intercepted them in Qualis vehicle and assaulted them with wooden club and stones. Even though there is variance in oral evidence of these witnesses as some witnesses deposed the 2nd incident occurred in the road leading towards Bairathi Bande some witnesses deposed the incident was occurred near Alfa College, in my opinion this is insignificant aspect. P.W.18 who is the signatory to the document Ex.P5 mahazar supported the case of the prosecution and nothing is elicited from her mouth to discard her version. P.W.16 even though turned hostile in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination by learned Special Public Prosecutor he has supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.17 Investigating Officer also deposed regarding the drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P5 and seizure of M.O.3 to M.O.6. P.W.7 has also deposed regarding the conducting of Ex.P6 mahazar in his presence and seizure of 52 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 M.O.3 to M.O.6. The oral evidence of P.W.7, P.W.16, P.W.17, P.W.18 which is supported by the document Ex.P5 is sufficient to hold that the Investigating Officer P.W.17 conducted Ex.P6 mahazar seized M.O.3 to M.O.6 in the place of incident. With regarding to the document Ex.P6 seizure of the bloodstained clothes of P.W.1 mahazar witness P.W.7 supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 has deposed that he took M.O.1 and M.O.2 bloodstained clothes of P.W.1 to the police station at that time police conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P6 in his presence. P.W.16 in his cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor has deposed regarding the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 in his presence in the police station as the same was produced by P.W.7. P.W.17 Investigating Officer also deposed regarding the mahazar Ex.P6 and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. P.W.1 injured and eye witness who is the best witness to say about M.O.1 and M.O.2 has deposed that M.O.1 shirt, M.O.2 banian belongs to him. During the course of cross-examination P.W.7, P.W.16, P.W.17 nothing is elicited from their mouth to discard their version regarding the seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P6 mahazar.
53 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
45. Another argument canvassed is to the effect that alleged motive for false implication against the accused, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there was enimity between the witnesses and accused persons interest to Grama Panchayath Election. Hence, P.W.1 and other witness have falsely implicate the accused in this case. She argued that there are several criminal cases and counter case registered against the P.W.1 and other witnesses and accused. She relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in 2000 (2) Crimes 137 to contend that the enimity is double edged weapon. She argued that the only due to enimity the accused persons have falsely implicated in this case. This argument of the learned counsel for the accused is not acceptable. No doubt it is come in evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.7 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and 12 that in Grama Panchayath Election P.W.1 and P.W.2 were lost and accused No.1 and one Manjamma won the election of Grama Panchayath. It is admitted fact that the election result was declared on 17.10.2010. It is the specific case of the prosecution that due to enimity when P.W.1 was doing construction work of Samudaya Bhavana at that time accused persons with a 54 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 common object picked up quarrel with him and assaulted him. The presence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and 12 in the place of incident cannot be doubted. Motive is propelling factor to commit deed it goads to person to do an act whereas intention is conscious designing of mind to do an act. The nature of act itself reveals the nature of intention. Where the prosecution case rests upon the eye witnesses, further the presence or absence of motive takes back seat and followed to prove motive is immaterial. In this case, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12 have clearly deposed regarding the overt act of the accused persons in commission of the offence. Hence, I find no substance in the submission that due to political enimity the accused persons have falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the accused argued that in Ex.D4 Remand Application, the Investigating Officer has mentioned that for trivial reasons the incident was occurred. No doubt Investigating Officer while filing the remand application and while he was objected for granting bail has taken such contention only for the reasons to reject the bail application. P.W.17 has made clarification that while filing the remand application he has mentioned that the 55 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 incident was occurred for trivial reasons. That itself is not sufficient to hold that no such incident was occurred.
46. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that P.W.1 and P.W.8 have sustained grievous injuries. She argued that the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the Dr. Prashanth who was treated P.W.1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She argued that prosecution has not produced the X-Ray Report and X-Ray Film to show that injury No.1 sustained by P.W.1 is grievous in nature. She further argued that on perusal of MLC Register Ex.P22 pertaining the P.W.8 Narasimhappa, there is no such injury mentioned regarding the fall of tooth. She argued that Sec. 320 of IPC does not attracts to this case. She has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1993 SC 66 to contend that there is no presumption that Doctor is always a witness of truth. His evidence will have to be appreciated like any other witness. I find some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused regarding the alleged grievous injury sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.8. According to the P.W.14 Doctor he opined that injury No.1 i.e., tendon of middle left hand finger of P.W.1 was grievous in nature. P.W.14 in his 56 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 cross-examination admitted the suggestion that the tendon is not fracture as per medical jurisprudence. He has admitted the suggestion that he has not produced any X-Ray Film and X-Ray Report to show that there was fracture of left hand middle finger of P.W.1. P.W.14 has opined that injury No.1 mentioned in Ex.P8 i.e., tendon of middle finger left hand is grievous in nature. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that there was fracture of left hand middle finger of P.W.1. Hence, the oral evidence of P.W.14 without there being any supporting document such as X-Ray film and X-ray report is not sufficient to hold that injury No.1 which is mentioned in Ex.P8 is grievous in nature. With regarding to fall of tooth of P.W.8 even though P.W.1 and P.W.8 have deposed that due to assault made by the accused two tooth of P.W.8 was broken, but to substantiate this contention the prosecution has not produced X-Ray report and other supporting documents. On perusal of Ex.P22 MLC Register which was mentioned soon after admission of P.W.8 there is no such mention regarding fall of tooth of P.W.8. P.W.14 Doctor who has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P9 mentioned that loosening of third molar tooth. In Ex.P9 also there is no 57 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 mention regarding fall of tooth of P.W.8. No doubt it is mentioned in Ex.P9 that there was loosening of third molar tooth. The oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.8 is not corroborating with the documents Ex.P9 and P22. Hence, there is no material to establish that P.W.1 and P.W.8 have sustained grievous injuries. The learned counsel for the accused rightly argued that in order to attract Sec. 325 and 326 of IPC the prosecution must establish that "hurt" falls within one of the categories out of 8 categories of injuries mentioned u/s 320 of IPC. In the present case, there is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that injury No.1 mentioned in Ex.P8 and injury No.1 mentioned in Ex.P9 were grievous in nature. The prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Sec. 320 of IPC. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that P.W.1 and P.W.8 were sustained grievous injuries. Hence, I answered point No.2 to 4 in the negative.
47. With regarding to Point No.1, 5, 6 and Point No.7 is concerned, there is sufficient material to show that the accused persons with common object formed an unlawful and in furtherance of their common object the accused persons had 58 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, wooden club, committed rioting and assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.12 and one Nagamma, Lakshmi, Muniraju and caused them simple injuries. With regarding to the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the burden of proof is strictly on the prosecution to establish that there was commission of such an offence and the allegations that the accused by using derogatory expressions with reference to the caste of P.W.1 in public view with an intention to insult or humiliate him. P.W.1 has clearly deposed that the accused persons abused him in the name of caste as "Madiga nanna magane". P.W.2 also deposed that the accused persons abused her and her husband in the name of accused as "Madiga Nanna Makkalu". P.W.3 has also deposed that accused abused accused persons P.W.1 in the name of caste as "Madiga nannam makkalu". P.W.4 also deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1and P.W.2 in the name of caste as "Madiga nanna makkalu". P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12 have also deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1 complainant in the name of caste as Madiga. The oral 59 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.7 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and 12 is consistent regarding the derogatory words used by the accused in order to abuse P.W.1 in the name of caste. They have each stated about derogatory words said to have been used by accused No.1 to accused No.7. They have clearly deposed that the accused persons have abused P.W.1 in the name of caste. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.7 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.12 corroborating and consistent evidence. In this regard, they have clearly deposed the exact word used by the accused in abusing P.W.1 in the name of caste. There is clear and cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused persons have abused P.W.1 by naming his caste with an intention to humiliate him in public view. There is clear and cogent evidence to show that the accused persons have committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. With regard to the offence u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, there is clear and cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that on 18.5.2010 the accused No.1 to 7 formed an unlawful assembly with common object to quarrel with P.W.1 and the accused persons armed with deadly 60 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 weapons like wooden club, iron rod stones committed rioting and the accused persons being the members of unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object and voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.1, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11 and other witnesses C.W.4 Nagamma, Lakshmamma and Muniraju. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.12 corroborates with the oral evidence of P.W.14 doctor regarding the simple injuries sustained by P.W.1, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11. P.W.12 and P.W.2 are also injured and eye witness. Their oral evidence is also corroborating with other witnesses. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.12 all these witnesses have clearly deposed regarding the overt act of the accused in commission of offences. P.W.14 doctor has deposed that he was examined all these injured (1) Chikka Venkatesh (P.W.1), (2) Narasimhappa (P.W.8), (3) Yallappa (P.W.9), (4) Nagamma, (5) Lakshmi (6) Muniraju (P.W.11), (7) Rachappa (P.W.10) (8) Narayanappa and issued Ex.P8 to P.W.15 wound certificates. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8, P.W.9 to P.W.11 is corroborating with the oral evidence of P.W.14 doctor. No doubt P.W.14 in his cross-examination stated that 61 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 he was not treated P.W.1. It is come in the evidence of P.W.14 is that P.W.1 taken treatment as in-patient for 10 days. Merely because P.W.14 was not given treatment subsequently to P.W.1 that itself is not sufficient to discard the entire oral evidence of P.W.14. Merely because the prosecution has not examined Dr. Prashanth, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.9, P.W.11 and P.W.12 are consistent with regard to the overt act of the accused persons in assaulting P.W.1 with iron rod, wooden club and there is absolutely no reason to believe their version. The accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and came together near Samudaya Bhavana and picked up quarrel with P.W.1 and in furtherance of common object, the accused persons assaulted P.W.1 with deadly weapons like iron rod, wooden club and caused P.W.1 simple injuries. The accused persons again quarrelled with P.W.1 while he was proceeding towards police station and assaulted him with deadly weapon like wooden club, iron rod and stones. The accused persons have also assaulted P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12 and also assaulted P.W.2, P.W.12 and one Nagamma and Lakshmi and caused them simple injuries. The prosecution has successfully 62 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 proved that the accused persons have committed offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable u/s 326, 325 r/w 149 of IPC. Thus, on an overall consideration of the evidence on record after separating the chaf from the grain. It is noticed that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.6 to P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12 which is supported by medical evidence of P.W.14 and evidence or P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.18 mahazar witnesses and evidence of P.W.17, P.W.19 Investigating Officer and police witnesses are consistent, cogent with regard to the role played by accused No.1 to 7 for the commission of the offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons have committed offences punishable u/s 325, 326 r/w 149 of IPC. The prosecution has proved that the accused persons have committed offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 63 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 Accordingly, I answer point no.1, 5 to 7 in the affirmative and I answer Point No.2 to 4 in the negative.
48. Point No.8:- In view of my findings on point no.2 to point no.4 I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 325, 326 r/w 149 of IPC. In view of my findings on Point No.1, 5 to 7, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused No.1 to 7 have committed offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Exercising jurisdiction conferred upon me under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 to 7 have not guilty of committing offences punishable u/s 325, 326 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences.
Exercising jurisdiction conferred upon me u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C., I hereby find 64 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 accused No.1 to 7 guilty of the offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The properties M.O.1 to M.O.6 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
The case is posted for hearing on quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, some paragraphs are directly inserted on the computer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of April, 2019.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
65 Spl.C. No. 300/2010ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard the learned counsel for the accused and accused on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on the convict accused No.1 to 7 for the offences U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which is proved against them.
The learned counsel for the accused/convicts submitted that accused are the permanent residents of N.G Gollahalli, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. She submits that there were several case and counter case pending against the complainant and the accused. She submits that the accused are the earning members of their family. The accused/convicts are not convicted in any other cases. She prays to take lenient view may be taken and only fine may be imposed.
On the other hand Learned Spl PP prays to imposed maximum punishment against the convicts/ accused. Today the complainant is also present.
Considering the nature of the injury to PW-1 and other injured and manner in which the offence is committed and as 66 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 the assault made by the accused to PW-1 in public place, I am of the view that the accused/convict are not entitled any benefit under section 3 and 4 of probation of offenders Act. Hence this court is declined to grant any benefit to the convict/accused under P.O.Act.
I have considered the submission of the accused and learned counsel for the accused and leaned Spl PP. In the light of the penology of law the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of M.P. V/s Najab Khan and others reported in 2013 Crl.L.J 3951 (S C) held that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and the given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of the weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficiency of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having 67 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime, but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
Considering the said principles and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of this case it can be seen that in the present case due to assault made by the convict pw-1 sustained simple injuries and other witnesses PW-8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW2 have also sustained simple injuries. Admittedly the convict/accused No.1 was member of Grama Panchayath. It is not in dispute that the accused persons are permanent residents of within the jurisdiction of this court.
Considering the facts of the case and considering the nature of injuries sustained by PW-1, PW2, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, I am of the view that the accused shall be punished with sentence of imprisonment for the offences U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which is proved against them. For the offence U/S 143 of IPC the punishment prescribed is 68 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 imprisonment for 6 months or fine or both. For the offence U/s 147 of IPC the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 2 years or fine or both. For the offence U/s 148 of IPC the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both. For the offence U/s 323 of IPC the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 1 year or fine of Rs.1000/- or both. For the offence U/s 324 of IPC the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both. For the offence U/S 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the punishment prescribed is imprisonment is not less than 6 months but which may extend to 5 years and with fine or both. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the accused, I pass the following:
ORDER The convict/Accused No.1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable U/S 143 R/w 149 of IPC.69 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
The convict / Accused No. 1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Three months for the offence punishable U/s 147 R/w 149 of IPC.
The convict / Accused No. 1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Three months for the offence punishable U/s 148 R/w 149 of IPC.
The convict / Accused No. 1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable U/s 323 R/w 149 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default to pay fine amount they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
The convict / Accused No. 1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable U/s 324 R/w 149 of IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default to pay fine amount they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
The convict / Accused No. 1 to 7 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable U/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and shall pay 70 Spl.C. No. 300/2010 fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default to pay fine amount shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.
The substantive sentence shall run concurrently. The accused No.1 to 7 / convicts are entitled set offence U/s 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period under prison.
A-1 to 7 are on bail, hence, they shall undergo the sentence imposed on them.
Office is directed to furnish the copy of this judgment to the convicts as required U/s 363 (1) of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, some paragraphs are directly inserted on the computer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of April, 2019.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.71 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
ANNEXURE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Chikkavenkatesha
PW.2 : Suma
PW.3 : Muniswamappa
PW.4 : Yallappa
PW.5 : Chandrashekar
PW.6 : Narayanappa
PW.7 : C. Munikrishna
PW.8 : Narasimhappa
PW.9 : Yallappa
PW.10 : Rajappa
PW.11 : Muniraju
PW.12 : Muniyappa
PW.13 : Narasimhamurthy
PW.14 : Dr. Rangarajan
PW.15 : Appayyappa
PW.16 : Thimmaiah
PW.17 : B. Ramachandrappa
PW.18 : Munithayamma
PW.19 : Krishnamurthy
PW.20 : Kumaraswamy TR
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW.20
Ex.P.2 : Four Photos
Ex.P 3 : Statement of PW.5
Ex.P 4 : Statement of PW.6
Ex.P5 : Mahazar
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P5(b) : Signature of PW.17
Ex.P5(c) : Signature of PW.18
Ex.P6 : Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P7 : Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW.13
Ex.P7(b) : Signature of PW.17
72 Spl.C. No. 300/2010
Ex.P8 to P15: Wound Certificates
Ex.P8(a) to P15(a): Signatures of PW.14
Ex.P8(b) to P15(b): Signature of PW.17
Ex.P16 : Voluntary statement of accused No.7
Ex.P16(a) : Signature of accused No.7.
Ex.P17 : Report of Tahasildar regarding caste
of PW.1.
Ex.P17(a) : Signature of PW.17
Ex.P18 : Report of Tahasildar regarding caste
of accused.
Ex.P18(a) : Signature of PW.17.
Ex.P19 to P26: Accident Register Extract of Vijayalakshmi Health Care.
Ex.P27 : Laboratory Report & Case Sheet
Ex.P28 : Admission Sheet
Ex.P29 : FIR
Ex.P29(a) : Signature of PW.20
Ex.P30 : Report of PW.20
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 : Statement of PW.4
Ex.D1(a) : Portion of the statement of PW.4 Ex.D2 : Statement of PW.9 Ex.D3 : Copy of charge sheet Ex.D4 : Remand Application
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1 : Shirt
M.O.2 : Banian
M.O.3 : Iron Rod
M.O.4 : Wooden Club
M.O.5 : Two Stones
M.O.6 : Glass Pieces
M.O.7 : Qualis Vehicle
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bangalore.