Karnataka High Court
Raja Ramappa Nayak S/O Raja Lachmappa ... vs The State on 17 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AKR 280, (2018) 1 KANT LJ 171
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3655/2011
Between:
1. Raja Ramappa Nayak
S/o Raja Lachmappa Nayak
Age : 35 years
Occ : Contractor and agriculture
R/o Shorapur.
2. Tirupati S/o Chandappa
Thanagund,
Age : 30 Years,
Occ : Agriculture
R/o Kudalagi.
3. Shivappa s/o Hulgappa Bangari
Age : 45 Years,
Occ : Agriculture
R/o Kudalagi.
4. Tirupati S/o Hannappagouda
Bangari, Age : 45 Years,
Occ : Agriculture
R/o Chigrihal.
5. Mallanna S/o Tipparaj Desai
Age : 27 Years,
2
Occ : Agriculture
R/o Adahalli.
6. Ningappa s/o Basappa Gourki,
Age : 25 Years, Occ : Agriculture
R/o Mavinamatti.
... Appellants
(By Sri. Baburao Mangane, Advocate)
And:
The State
Through Kembhavi P.S.,
... Respondent
(By Sri. Maqbool Ahmed, HCGP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C. praying to allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment and order passed in S.C.No.63/2010 on the
file of the Session Judge at Yadgiri dated : 17.8.2011
convicting the appellants for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 509 R/w 149 of IPC
and acquit the accused / appellants of the alleged
offences.
This appeal having been heard on 07.06.2017,
reserved for judgment and coming on for
pronouncement of judgment this day, the Court
delivered the following:-
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by appellants - accused nos.1 to 6 by assailing the judgment of conviction passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in S.C.No.63/2010 dated : 17.08.2011.
2. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that on 6.7.2008 the complainant was removing waste things in her land bearing sy.nos.63 and 102 at Kudalagi village, at that time, at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m., one Ramappa Naik S/o Lachmappa Naik of Surpur along with Siddanna Bangeri, Tirupati S/o Chandappa Kanagundi of Kudalagi village and 8 to 10 other persons trespassed into her land by constituting an unlawful assembly and abused her by saying that he has purchased the said land, by abusing so, Ramappa Naik grappled her and snatched gold chain ( Bormala Sara ) and 5-tolas of golden bangles from her hand and thereafter by holding her saree pulled her and at that 4 time Siddanna Bangari and Tirupati abused and threatened the complainant with life and thereafter assaulted on her back, chin with hands and the remaining 8 to 10 persons surrounded her, at that time, the mother of the complainant Gurusiddamma, her husband Rudragouda and Basavva Madar came and rescued her. Since there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused persons, the said Ramappa Naik assaulted her and thereafter robbed the gold ornaments. Subsequently, a complaint was came to be filed and on the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.101/2008. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.
3. The committal Court, by following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after taking the cognizance secured the accused, after hearing them about the charge, framed the charge 5 against the accused. Since accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, the trial was fixed.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and also got marked three documents as per Exs.P-1 to 3. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating materials as against them, which they denied and they have not led any evidence on their behalf.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the counsels, the impugned judgment came to be passed, wherein Accused Nos.1 to 6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 509 R/w Sec.149 of IPC. Assailing the said judgment and order, accused nos.1 to 6 are before this Court. 6
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the State.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri.Baburao Mangane, vehemently argued and contended that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts on record. He would further contend that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to a wrong conclusion. He would also contend that the trial Court slipped into an error and erroneously passed the impugned order, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He would further contend that P.W.3, the mother of the complainant has deposed that when Galata took place, at that time, police came to the spot but they did not enquire with her and the complaint came to be registered on the next day at about 9.30 a.m., In this context, he submits that there is a delay in filing the 7 complaint. He would further contend that P.Ws.3 and 4 have deposed that they do not know the reason for the quarrel. When there is no motive or reason for the quarrel, then under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have held that no such incident has taken place and it is the complainant and others who aggressed and tried to assault the accused but they foisted a false case. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. He would further contend that the ingredients of Section 509 of Cr.P.C., and other Sections have not been proved by the prosecution but in spite of that the trial Court has convicted the accused persons. He would further contend that the evidence on record clearly goes to show that there is a civil dispute between the complainant and the accused persons only in order to bring pressure in the civil suit, a false case has been registered. He would further contend that though accused no.1 has also sustained the injuries, this fact has not been 8 considered and appreciated by the trial Court and has come to a wrong conclusion. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing of the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Maqbool Ahmed, vehemently argued and contended that P.W.5 has clearly stated the presence of the accused and he being an independent witness, there is no animosity. Under such circumstances, the trial Court by accepting the evidence of P.W.s 5 and 7 has rightly convicted the accused persons. Even P.W.7, the police constable was also present and he has also deposed about the incident. He would further contend that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.7 though he categorically stated about the alleged incident. He further contends that there is consistency and corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and after considering the said facts the trial 9 Court has rightly convicted the accused - appellants. Accused appellants have not made out any good grounds so as to set aside the impugned judgment. The said judgment is liable to be confirmed. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. In the background of the several contentions taken up by the learned counsel for the accused- appellants, now let me consider whether the accused appellants have made out any grounds so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
10. P.W.1 is the spot mahazar pancha. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has been treated as hostile. P.W.2 is the complainant. She has deposed that she is having agricultural land and about two years six months back, she was alone in the land and was removing the waste things. At about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m., three accused along with others came in a Tata Sumo, they came near her and thereafter accused 10 no.1 Ramanappa Naik, accused no.3 Shivappa held her hand and told that they would finish her and threatened her and thereafter told as to why she has come to their land. She has further deposed that the accused persons took the gold chain (Bormala Sara ), gold bangles and at that time her mother Gurusiddamma, her husband Rudragouda and Basappa came to the place of incident and rescued her. Since the witness has partly turned hostile, she has been treated as hostile and the learned public prosecutor cross-examined the witness. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited.
11. During the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that she had been to police station on the date of the incident and at that time the police have recorded her statement. She has admitted that there is no road to come to her land and the alleged incident took place for about one hour. She has also deposed 11 that except her mother and her husband, nobody was there in the nearby land and no other persons came to the spot. She has further deposed that she has not given the statement. It has been further elicited that earlier she had filed a complaint against accused No.1 and the other suggestions have been denied by this witness.
12. P.W.3 is the mother of the complainant. She is also an eyewitness to the alleged incident. She has deposed that since seven-eight years there is a civil dispute between accused No.1 and herself and about two years six months back at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m., when she was collecting the waste of wood, at that time CW.4 C.W.4 were also working in the said field. At that time accused came in a Tata Sumo vehicle to the field and started quarreling with the complainant and abused her in filthy language and thereafter, by holding her hands pulled her saree, by that time C.W.4 and 12 C.W.5 rescued her. She has further deposed that accused No.1 was quarreling with PW.2 by telling that the said land belongs to him. During the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that there is a stream water halla in the said village and she has admitted that if persons are there in the said halla, the persons who are there in Gaddi land they will not be seen. Other suggestions have been denied by this witness.
13. PW.4 is also an eyewitness. He has deposed that after hearing galata, he came and saw accused No.1 abusing the complainant in filthy language and pulled her by holding her hand and accused Nos.2 to 6 were standing at a distance and they have come in a Jeep to the field. He has further deposed that C.W.3 and PW.4 were also there. During the course of cross- examination, he has deposed that PW.2 is her brother's daughter and the said incident took place for about half 13 an hour and after hearing the galata he came to the spot. He has further admitted that by the time he went, the said galata was over.
14. P.W.5 is also an eyewitness who was working as a coolie. He has also deposed that at about 5.30 p.m., the accused persons came in a vehicle to gaddi field where PW.2 was collecting the waste wood and they abused her in filthy language and quarreled with her. At that time, C.Ws.3, 4 and P.W.4 rescued her. But he does not know for what purpose they were quarreling. He has deposed during the course of cross- examination that he has seen the accused persons on the date of incident and at the time of alleged incident, he was at a distance. Other suggestions have been denied.
15. PW.s 6 and 7 are the police constables. They have deposed that they have been deputed for bandubast and on 06-07-2008 at about 5.30 p.m., in 14 survey Nos.63 & 102 when they were on bandubast at that time the accused persons came in a Tata Sumo to the said field and at that time Devindramma, Bapugouda, Gurannagouda, Devangouda, Akkamma, Rudragouda, Shivalingamma, Devindramma, Sharangouda, Basappa and Suresh and other came there and by taking the mud boll, started assaulting the complainant when accused No.1 Rajramappa Nayak asked accused No.1 he told that he has purchased the said land and he further told that if they come to the said land they will remove his leg. The other accused persons also pelted mud boll and damaged the glasses of the Tata Sumo. During the course of cross- examination of these two witnesses nothing much has been elicited.
16. P.W.8 is the P.S.I who came to the spot and pacified the quarrel and after recording the statement, rgistered the case and after investigation filed the 15 charge sheet against the accused persons. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that there is a counter case and the complainant is accused No.1 in that case. Other suggestions have been denied.
17. As could be seen from the evidence produced by the prosecution, the main cause for the alleged incident is that, the complainant was removing the waste things in the land bearing suvey Nos.63 and 102 of Kudalgi village and at that time accused No.1 and other accused persons came there and abused her in filthy language. Accused No.1 by holding her hands pulled her and pulled her saree and thereafter he told that the said land is belonging to him. It is not in dispute that the civil disputes are pending between the complainant and the accused. During the course of discussion, the learned Session Judge taking into consideration the fact that, a case and a counter case have to be heard by the same Judge he has conducted 16 the case. The said ratio has been laid down in the case of Abdul Majid Sab V/s State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2010 Karnataka 1719. So far as the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is correct and in this behalf it does not call for any interference.
18. On perusing the prosecution case there are case and counter case and the presence of the accused is also going to be proved by virtue of case and counter case. Even it is going to prove the fact that there was a scuffle between the two groups because of the previous enmity between them pertaining to civil dispute. P.W.2 complainant has deposed that the accused persons came in a Tata Sumo and abused her in filthy language and at that time accused No.1 by holding her hand pulled her and also pulled her saree and at that time the other accused persons were also abusing in filthy language and thereby they tried to outrage her modesty. In so far as the evidence of PW.s 2, 5, 6 and 7 is 17 concerned there is corroboration in the evidence of these witnesses. Though during the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the mother of the complainant and P.W.4 were standing in the stream and it is not possible for them to see what is going on in the land at survey Nos.63 and 102 where the galata took place, the evidence of PW.s 3 and 4 is also consistent with the other evidence. They have also stated that immediately after the incident they came to the spot which itself is sufficient to show that at the alleged place of incident these witnesses were present and the other accused persons were also present. During the course of cross-examination of PW.4 it has been suggested that by the time he came there, galata was over. He has admitted the same. The said suggestion itself indicates that a galata took place and thereafter P.W.4 came there. But the other witnesses have consistently and categorically have deposed about the alleged incident and in their evidence 18 nothing has been elicited so as to discard their evidence.
19. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that PW.s 2, 3, 4 and P.W.5 are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be believed. It is true that they are interested witnesses and closely related with each other. But merely because the witnesses are the relative witnesses and interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded. Another crowning factor which supports the case of the prosecution is that P.W.s 6 and 7 were the police constable who have been deputed for the purpose of bandubast duty and they have categorically deposed that the accused persons came there and abused the complainant and pulled her saree by holding her hand. This evidence corroborates with the evidence of P.W.s 2, 3 and 4. In this behalf even on independent assessment of the evidence there is material to show that there is an 19 alleged incident and at that time the accused persons have abused and the alleged incident has taken place.
20. On careful perusal of the evidence on record it clearly goes to show that the accused persons by constituting an unlawful assembly being the members of the said assembly with a common object to commit the riot, came to the land, pulled the hands and saree of the complainant. In this behalf there is consistent and corroborative evidence. The entire evidence reposes confidence to the effect that there is consistency and corroboration and there are no good grounds to discard their evidence and the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
21. Looking from any angle, the impugned order is sustainable in law. The trial Court considering the material facts and with proper appreciation of the facts and documents has come to a right conclusion and has convicted the accused /appellants. Hence the same 20 cannot be interfered with at the hands of this Court. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order requires to be confirmed and following order has been passed :-
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SGS/MWS