Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mallanagouda Ravsaheb Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.891 OF 2008
MALLANAGAOUDA RAVSAHEB PATIL & ORS. .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA .. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2000, dated 04.07.2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
2. As per the prosecution, on 22.04.1997 at about 12.00 midnight, the accused/appellants-herein broke into the house of Basava Gaidgappa Basatti a resident of village Bochabai,Ramdurg, Karnataka. They Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet Kaur Date: 2015.08.17 16:55:17 IST were carrying weapons such as sickles, sticks and Reason: 2 stones and assaulted the complainant on her head, shoulders, trunk and legs and on her left hand due to which she sustained multiple injuries. At that time, Sanadurgappa Uppar (PW-6), who was sleeping in the Hanamanth Temple, came and attempted to pacify the quarrel. The accused-appellants also assaulted (PW-6) and injured him on his face and eyes. Thereafter, the accused-appellants ran away from the spot, assuming that the complainant was dead. The next morning, the complainant and (PW-6) went to Belgaum Hospital for treatment and examination. They were discharged from the hospital on 08.05.1997.
3. The FIR was lodged only on 03.05.1997 when the Police Sub-inspector received information about the incident at 10.00 p.m., whereupon investigation commenced.
4. After the conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was duly filed against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 3 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”).
5. During the course of the trial, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The complainant was PW-1, and the Trial Court found her evidence full of inconsistencies and contradictions. PW-6 supported the case of the complainant. However, the Trial Court held that the testimony of PW-6 could not be relied upon as he worked for the complainant and was not an independent witness. PW-2 to PW-5 and PW-7 to PW-9 were panch witnesses who had turned hostile, and therefore their testimony were not relied upon by the Trial Court. The evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-12) was also not relied upon by the Trial Court for the lack of consistency with the case of the complainant. Upon meticulous consideration of the evidence of the prosecution, the material on record and the submissions made by the 4 parties, the Trial Court held that the case against the accused-appellants could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused-appellants.
6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the State carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. Since the accused-appellants were unrepresented before the High Court, the Court had appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
7. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order has noticed that the delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant has occurred because she was in a helpless state and undergoing treatment for her injuries. The wound certificate of the complainant (Ex. P-8) disclosed that the hospital authorities were informed that the injuries on the complainant were caused due to assault, and therefore, that this was a medico-legal case. The High Court further held 5 that it was the on the part of the hospital authorities to have intimated the police about the admission of a medico legal case, and the hospital authorities were negligent in informing the police of the same. Accordingly, the High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR could not be considered as fatal to prove the prosecution case.
8. Without going into details of the prosecution evidence, the High Court summarily concluded that the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Code, and sentenced the accused-appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 were convicted for the offences 6 punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the accused-appellants are before us in this appeal.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
11. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants would submit that the High Court, 7 while passing the impugned judgment and order has completely ignored the evidence on record and failed to consider the material contentions urged by the parties. He would further submit that the High Court has failed to consider the stand taken by the accused-appellants before the Trial Court that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State would support the judgment and order so passed by the High Court.
12. We find merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants.
13. The FIR was lodged after 11 days of the alleged incident. Although the incident occurred on 22.04.1997 at about 12:00 midnight, the FIR was lodged only on 03.05.1997 at about 10:00 p.m. The Belgaum Hospital, where the complainant was admitted, did not report this as a medico-legal case to the police authorities. The explanation that was offered 8 by the prosecution before the Trial Court for lodging the FIR belatedly was that the complainant was injured and there was no other person to assist her in lodging the FIR. This explanation was disbelieved by the Trial Court and it had therefore come to the conclusion that the accused-appellants required to be granted the benefit of doubt. In our opinion, the High Court has reversed a well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and the explanation offered is highly inadequate. It is a well settled law that undue and unreasonable delay in filing of FIR can throw a cloud of suspicion on the deeds of the prosecution case. In our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have considered this aspect of the matter and should have assigned some cogent reasons in finding fault with the order passed by the Trial Court.
14. The Trial Court undertook a detailed study 9 of the prosecution evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. But the High Court without proper appreciation of the material on record has passed a cryptic order. A single line statement that “the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused” does not indicate proper appreciation of all material on record or reference to the ingredients essential for constituting the offences for which the accused-appellants have been convicted. The High Court has relied upon the testimony of the complainant (PW-1) without giving reasons as to why it disagrees with the Trial Court, which held that the testimony of the complainant was wholly inconsistent and replete with contradictions. Further, no reasons have been stated by the High Court as to why it disagreed with the Trial Court in respect of the evidence adduced by (PW-2). According to the Trial Court, (PW-2), the alleged witness of 10 the spot panchnama, did not corroborate the case of the prosecution, and was therefore declared to be hostile. In our considered view, the High Court has failed to assign reasons for finding fault with the decision of the Trial Court.
15. In that view of the matter, we set aside the judgment and orders passed by the High Court and uphold the order passed by the Trial Court.
16. The Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly.
..............CJI.
[ H.L. DATTU ] ................J. [ ARUN MISHRA ] ................J. [ AMITAVA ROY ] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 13, 2015.
11
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 891/2008
MALLANAGOUDA RAVSAHEB PATIL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(With office report)
Date : 13/08/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Amjeed Maqbul, Adv.
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The criminal appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ G.V. Ramana ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. A.R.-cum-P.S.
[ Signed order is placed on the file ]