Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs B T Hanumanthappa S/O Thimmanna on 23 September, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF SEPTEMBER, A'
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE _1:...sR1DED'I?£AR-:1:.§A6'
AND A _ V _
THE HON'BLE MR. .*r'Usj'1cfii*Bmv. Vp1mf1*Dai._:v..V
CRLA. NO. 290a ' I V
BETWEEN:-- . 3 '
The State of Karnataka, '
[Sub Inspector of.P01ice,§_' '
Abbinahoie Police 'V
Hiriyur Taluki'. " '
" D ~ _ &_ Appellant
(By Sri N..S_.DVSarDpaE1gi.raniai_ah, PICGP)
AND:--
1. B.T.& Han1,mantheapp}age 4
S__/ 0. T1i1'mrnanna,"~.
50 years, V
V 2'. 'Chahdranna.
"STA/'0v.9_ T7him_fr1--anna,
.Age.d'48 years.
3. A--441P.T,~Nav3g?ai~a3,
S/o'..Thirr1manI3.a,
Aged45 years,
Rajesh,
" S/0. Hanumanthappa,
Aged 22 years,
5. G.D. Hanumantharaya.
S/o. Doddathimmanria,
Aged 30 years,
6. BR. Ramadasa,
S/o. BK. Giriyappa.
Aged 30 years,
7. Hernanna.
S/o. Doddanna,
Aged 28 years,
All are R/o. Bidarakere Villa"ge,,_
Hiriyur Taluk. " '
_ V Respondents
(By Sri RB. Deshpande, Adv_o'ca.tej" "
This Crl.A.._1's-. _file{;1 U/1s;;378m;..u f (3) Cr.P.C. by the
State P.P. for the State .p':7ayi_ng that this"'Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to grant'1*_VleaVe.__ to filefan. ' appeal against the
judgment dated 20.3'-_'O«.2OKO5 "pasfsed by the C.J.M..
Chitradurga. _ "in "'1f;3..C.No;~194y/"2001 -- acquitting the
respond;ents--accnvsedlfo1'--they offences punishable U/ Ss.143,
147, 148., 341, .323;j"324, 326427, 504, 506 r/W. sec.1d9 of
IPC. The appeIlar1t_--StateVpraysllthat the above order may be
set aside. ' " V I
V. .appea1"corning for hearing on this day, PINTO, J .,
V' delivered the ifollowinvgiw
JUDGMENT
is filed by the State Challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, lfjizitradurga in C.C.No.194/2001 by the Judgment dated ll'-._"l20.ll;O.2005 acquitting the respondents of the offences U/Ss.143, 147, 148, 341, 323. 324, 326, 427, 504, 506 r/W. Sec. 1 49 Of IPC.
2. The Sub~Inspector of Police, Abbinahole Police Station, Hiriyur Taluk filed chargewsheet before the Hiriyur alleging that on 14.09.1997 at about _ Accused Nos.1 to 7 in the said case forrned_th-ernselves into' an unlawful assembly in Bidarakiere .' deadly weapons like stones, sticks andlchopperé. restrained the complainant and dan1age*to motor cycle of CW1 and further'~~they7hlaye*:'assaulted to CW8 and s:injaople'--ta11,d grievous injuries to CW1 and thereafter, they intimidated Cl;/2 to CW8 and caused rrieans of chopper to CW2 thereby they, alleged "tn:_1f1aVe committed offence U/s.143, 147, in 1'.4e,_, i32e3V",'~--324, 326, 427, 504, 506 r/W. Sec. 149 of IPC. C' _ order to prove the case, the prosecution has 'xexaminedlin all 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 =lan.AdVlf5roduced M.Os.1 to 7. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned JMF C, Hiriyur by Judgment dated «\ 25.08.2001 in C.C.No.ES66/1998 convicted the accused Nos.1 to 6 and Accused No.11 for the aforesaid offences and acquitted Accused Nos.7 to 10, 3.2 and 13. The learned Magistrate instead of passing the sentence held that the accused deserves severe sentence and hence, he has "tak_e11 action U/s.325 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the Judgn1ent::'t'ol M CJM, Chitradurga for passing adequate».sentencel."0n of the said case, the learned "lregistlered C.C.No.194/2001 and caus'ed"'~....the A"oppearance;V""of the * 0' respondents who are Accused .5 and "Aevcpuse-d No. 1 1 before the JMF C. The accused. lantfa:pp.lication U/s.31l of Cr.£'j.vC. Vior7.fjreca3l.1ir1g:and_ further examination of the witnesses who were "eziamined by the JMFC and the CJM allowed" t_:he-s'aidV application and permitted further " l"vcross--lex?a:nination olfwthe said witnesses by the accused 'lheregafter, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the llealined CJM has held that the prosecution has lrnot estaloIi:shed the guilt of the accused and passed the order A ":0:of.Vac'quittal by the Judgment dated 28.10.2005. The State has filed the appeal challenging the order of acquittal. :-
/fl
4. PW} ~ Thimmaraya has stated thatbon 14.09.1997 at about 10.30 am. he has gone to _ Sy.No.39/1 of Bidarakere village. At accused persons formed into an uiilawful 'evasse'in'bly'holding.' chopper, stick and knife andg.abused~--Athem am'; .thei*eafter, the accused Hanumantharaya assa'ulted -iihandtanna on his right eyebrow, xii-3.._'l'.Hanufnanthappa assaulted CW8 by means' B.T.Nagaraja assaulted CW3 of club on his cheek. The; assaulted CW2 with choppervaas-Va.i:esul;t'ofw"righ't thumb got cut and fell down. the iilaslsaulted CW6, CW?' and CW4 by meansliofl .stones_ club. The accused further threatened~ the \?l'7i'tIJ,€_Sa§H€'S saying that they would cause their murder biyvmeans of knife. The accused have also caused t'oihi.s Bajaj 4S to an extent of Rs.2,000/-.
_Thereafte::',:.hih1seif and MLA Ranganna and CW10 -- ivynvésééfihhandranna intervened and went to the police station. .(«§or_lnplaint as per EX.Pi was given. He has identified the 'weaioons M.Os.1 to 7 and also the damaged vehicle M.O.8 ¢' 6 and stones M.O.9 to M.O.I2, cloths worn at the time of assault as M.O.}/i and M.O.i5. He has been extensively cross--examined by the defence.
5. PW2 «-- Rangaswamy is another injured Vperson. He has also stated that the accused have _ when he tried to rescue himself from the assau1t':of"' on his neck, his right thumb was jfellgg also stated regarding the overt actsall otheriaccugsed persons and has identified the 'Weapons time of commission of the offenc'e'.~.._ i'Wll5_--.+¢VIl{angasii{amy_* is another injured person. He has also" stated :.ljregVa'r.di'11g the participation of all the accused. Perslorlfi in the"-cornmission of the offence and also V' "causing damage to thelifehicle by the accused persons. Vijayamma has also stated regarding the V _ 0vert""acts:.ofa11 the accused before the Court and also Various Weapons used by them in the commission of the 1' ,orf_em:--e'.
1* /2
8. PWS -- Hampanna has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW6 -- Chandranna is also injured witness. He has also corroborated V' PW1 to PW4. PW7 -- Kariyanna is __.aIs0.4anot.heif Vi who has spoken regarding the presencei{of'~fhe'ddac_c'u.s£~:dV scene of occurrence.
9. PWS -- Narasiznhappa, .1?uttan1i'na, PW10 ~»-- Chandranna, PW1 1 ~-- Susheelafriinav, .v--i;jayanna, PW13 ~»-- Linganna, PW.1:fi*---. ~ Parameshi have turnedghostiIe'V-io'.o_fLI91e-.pros--ec'i.1ti'on case.
153. is a witness to EX.P7 ~»--
mahazardunder -pidoiicse have seized M.Os.13 1:0 15 «- blood _et.ained'dc1ot}1s.v"
it 1 -- Dr. Chandramrna is the Medical Officer Who"--._has«V"_"exa;nined Rangaswamy and issued wound V _ certificateyiasv "pier Ex.P8. She has examined one Hampanna ,éI'1'd;l'._.SSU.éd. wound certificate as per EX.P10. She has further _' -_eXami1ied Chandranna and issued wound certificate as per 192-x-.}1°.11. Further, she has examined Vijayalakshmi and !' 5/ issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.13 and examined Narasirnhaiah and issued wound certificate as and she has opined that the injuries on the saidjjersownst are':' H simple in nature. ».
12. PW17 «~-- Thippaiahis the Police Subévmspector of Challakere Police Station relevanttperiodg has registered a case and tran.smit.'ted_..the He has visited the scene of occurrenc'e"ast' mahazar and seized the weapons. ad also seized the bloodstainedf and thereafter, he arrestedrrvthie "andaproducedfthem before the Court and fi1ed'v--ch'-arge A1-3. Itu"is_ from the evidence of these witnesses, the iearried ¢37i'w!FC..«has originally found that the accused in this °c_as'e&_are has convicted them. After the matter was forw'a_rded,to for imposing severe sentence, in View of . the seriousness of the offence committed by the accused, the CJM has recalled PW} to PW4 and PW? who are _._hinju%red in the case and has recorded the further statement V //'r and cross--exarr1ination. It is further seen that the CJM has further permitted the accused to examine DWI --»~ Belappa and DW2 -- Hanumantharaya at the request of the accused. It is elicited from the evidence of DWI and DW2 that time of the incident there was altercation between' parties. It is further elicited from the evidencetof Belappa that several persons about persons had come at the time of thelincidentgin $1 lorry holding weapon and they had for and during the Panchayath there:tiiifaslilaltercationwand in the altercation the incident
14., = D\W.'_5dlQiflaniirriagnitharaya is originally CW2 in the charger--sheet.li,e that a civil suit filed before the Civil. {Sr.l)"1i«s}..VQhitradurga between PW1 and Accused No.4 decided in favour of Accused No.4 and the the High Court challenging the said A _ judgnieritiliridfavour of Accused No.4. In the said case, hi-gnachamirza was a party. It is also elicited that there was a
-_lo:ig'standing enmity between the complainant party and the accused party and in respect of the incident, one E0 B.T.Hanumantharaya who is Accused No.1 has filed 3.-.'_case against Thirnmaraya and others and police have filed:
sheet in the said case against PW} and o'r;hers._.uTt V' elicited that all the witnesses in thiscase except'~the'.loffi:cial.,o Witnesses are related to PW1. The:":defene'e marked Ex.D1 being the Fanchanarraa the = L' counter case and also the evidence-'in of PW1 as Ex.D2. It is after evidence. this was recorded by the of the case and the CJM{_" lppfotgindl Vlprosecution case is doubtful. and the defence, the learned, _respor1dents.
15. I:flelardxL'3_r.il'Sanipangiramaiah, the learned HCGP _ and learned counsel appearing for the aAccn_;,§ediv.l"Ait theoutset Sri RB. Deshpande filed application AU/s;73__9ll praying that the documents filed along _ withllthe application may be allowed as additional evidence.
fVpf'l1eVosaidV'Vd.ocuznents are FIR in Crime No.84/97 registered ,against: PW1 and others and also the connected charge--sheet in the said case and the statement of B.T.Hanumanthappa ~« Accused No.1 in CC.No.-492/1991 and Kenchamma and Jayamma and also the Judgment in C.C.No.492/1991 against Thimmaraya and others wherein the accused in the said case are acquitted by the Civil Judge {Jr.Dn] and JMFC, Hiriyur of the offences charged:Va"gainst them. The learned HCGP has no objection to documents on record for the purpose "ofd.isposalveol"thisV cafse.Hg
16. From the evidence, the «injured witnesvses ; PW3, PW4 and PW7 and the on 'record, is seen that the accused have caused ._in'ju«ries onldthle injured Witnesses and grievous injur}rtoV"PW2 of the assault by the accusedvlience, the accused are liable to be convicted for_the The 'learned counsel Sri R.B.Deshpande appea1'ing_:for'Vi'th:e'raccused submits that the prosecution has not Vnrovedllleitilzee injuries sustained by the accused and 'xtherefore."the prosecution has not come up with the clean and the non--explanation of the injuries on the person oflthe accused is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, v.
% the order of acquittal passed by the learned CJM does not warrant interference in this appeal.
18. After carefully going through "
record. we are of the opinion that the .'prevsenlLCe Voflfythe, V accused at the time of incident can'not:'_Abe'fvdisputed View of the marking of EXP. other Vdocufments'i--Vmarked * if by the defence. The injuriesy___hVazre 'beenhlcertified by the Medical Officers having..V:l'cau.sed' -time and place mentioned above v'I'he:.AFi1:3.1::1fJ.as without any delay. Underri: hold that the prosecution 1"pVroyed'--.tl'ifat- accused have committed offencézu/«s'.33v4urjziriA of IPC and we hold that they are liable to._4bc.vconviVcte'dLand sentenced for the said offence. V. In icsult, tliei--folvloWing ORDER is allowed in part. The judgment of acquittal: so far as the offence U/s.324 r/W Sec.149 IPC is h .j:setiasidVe.. The accused are convicted for the offence U/s.334 'Sec. 149 of {PC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/~
-each on each count i.e., each of the accused is directed to 13 pay fine of sum of Rs.3,000/~ for the injuries caused to the--.__ injured persons. The accused are directed to deposit tfie amount before the tried Court.
Judge Gps*