Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs G R Ananthareddy S/O Dodda Ramappa on 17 October, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.369/2008
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Royalpad police station. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.P.Karunakar, HCGP)
AND:
1. G.R.Ananthareddy,
S/o Dodda Ramappa,
Aged about 52 years,
2. Varaprakash
S/o G.R.Ananthareddy,
Aged about 25 years,
3. Harish s/o Srinivasareddy,
Aged about 26 years,
4. Karthik s/o Chowdareddy,
Aged about 23 years,
All are residing at Goravimakalahalli,
Srinivaspur taluk. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Y.R.Sadashivareddy, Adv.)
This Crl.A. is filed under Section 378(1) & (3)
of Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
2
15.12.2007 in Spl.C.C.No.56/2007 on the file of the II
Addl.Sessions Judge, Kolar-acquitting the respondents-
accused for offences punishable under Sections 324,
355, 504 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. and under Section
3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
This Crl.A. coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Sections 324, 355 and 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1989') on a trial held by the Spl.Judge, Kolar.
2. The facts reveal that, respondent No.1 had agreed to sell 33 guntas of land to PW-1 for Rs.1,40,000/- and received Rs.60,000/- as an advance amount. Later respondent No.1 had sold the land to some other person and on 20.07.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., when PWs 1 and 7 and two others were waiting near Lakshmipura cross for a bus to go to Royalpad police station to lodge a complaint against the 1st 3 respondent, it is alleged that the respondents came at the place and abused PW-1 by referring to his caste and asked him as to why he is intending to file a complaint and the 1st respondent is said to have assaulted PW-1 with iron rod on his shoulder. The 2nd respondent assaulted with a club and when PW-7 intervened to rescue his father PW-1, 3rd respondent said to have assaulted with a club and accused Nos. 2 and 4 assaulted PWs 1 and 7 with chappals. After the incident, PWs 1 and 7 went to the hospital and PW-6 treated him.
3. On 22.07.2007 at about 8.30 a.m., PW-1 presented a written complaint to the police which came to be registered in Cr.No.44/07. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The spot mahazar Ex.P2 was held in the presence of the witnesses. Injury certificates Ex.P3 and P4 and caste certificate Ex.P5 were collected and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the respondents for the aforesaid offences.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO's 1 to 5. 4 Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Ex.D1 was got marked in the evidence of PW-1. The trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the respondents for the said charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed.
5. I have heard learned HCGP for the appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondents.
6. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that PWs 1 and 7 are the injured witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded lightly. He also contends that their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 the independent eyewitnesses and therefore, he contends that the court below was not justified in granting an order of acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution is not consistent and cogent and there are many discrepancies and therefore the trial court was justified in granting an order of acquittal. 5
8. PW-6 is the doctor who examined PWs 1 and 7 and issued injury certificates Exs.P3 and P4. Ex.P3 reveals that PW-1 sustained contusion and tenderness over the left side of forehead and a superficial burn over the right leg measuring 3x2 cms. He was treated with the history of assault by a group of 15 members near Lakshmipura cross with stones. So also, PW-7 was examined by PW-6 and the injury certificate Ex.P4 reveals that PW-7 had sustained tenderness over the right shoulder, a small contusion over the upper lip and tenderness over the right side of the neck. The history recorded is of the assault by a group of 15 members at Lakshmipura cross. Both the injured PWs 1 and 7 were examined on 20.07.2007 at about 4.20 p.m. PW-6 the doctor is an independent witness and has no interest either in the prosecution or the defence. So the medical evidence led by the prosecution supports its version about the injuries sustained in the incident.
9. Generally, the injured does not implicate an innocent and does not leave the person who has really caused the harm. PW-1 in his evidence has stated that the 1st respondent caused assault with an iron rod, 6 whereas the 2nd respondent caused assault with a club. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, wherein he states that 1st respondent caused assault on PW-1 with iron rod and 2nd respondent caused assault with a club. Similarly, PW-3 states about the assault by respondents 1 and 2 with rod and club, whereas, both these witnesses state that accused No.4 caused assault with chappals.
10. PW-7 is another injured and he states in his evidence that respondent No.3 assaulted him with iron rod, whereas respondent No.4 said to have assaulted with chappals. So each of the respondents have caused assault on PWs 1 and 7. It is no doubt true that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses but PWs 2 and 3 are the independent eyewitnesses and they do state that there were as many as 15 members. PWs 1 and 7 specifically state about the names of these accused who caused assault with weapons in their evidence. The incident took place on 20.07.2007 and the evidence of the witnesses were recorded in the month of November, 2007. In view of the lapse of time in between, the possibility of some discrepancies cannot be over ruled. In such 7 circumstances, the scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 would lead to irresistible conclusion that the respondents 1 to 4 are liable for conviction for the offence under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt.
11. So far as other witnesses are concerned, there is no consistent, cogent and acceptable evidence and therefore, the trial court was justified in granting acquittal for the said charges. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the respondents will have to be held guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC only.
12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Respondents 1 to 4 were held guilty for the offence under Section 323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and each of them are ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-,in default, to undergo S.I. for 15 days. Acquittal of the respondents for the other charges is affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.