Karnataka High Court
State By Mulbagal vs Venkateshappa S/O Ramappa on 18 January, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY or JANUARY 2012 V. THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN; sH1ANTANAéjeU'DAR_ 1' THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE_ v.sUa1_1"APPA'i§A<§_v' 1' QRIMINAL APPEAL ..11.§u 2[ EQQ7 I Be;w§;e_n : State by Mulbagati" Police Station. ' ' PRESENT : AND (By Sri P.M. A Ang : 1. M Venkates'h<apVpa; S/0 Ramappa' ' _ Aged _34 yealjs A. A ..... » S,/Q C_ha.nga'ia,rayappa ' 'Aged ye"ar_s"_'_. . N.a'taya.n--aEp?pa; S/Ac Ramappa Aged years .'.P_a;r"amashiva '-VS/C) Ramappa __?Aged 31 years 5. Srinivasa S/o Changalarayappa Aged 34 years 6. Lakshmana Prasad S/0 Changalarayappa Age Major All are residents of S. Chandumanahalli Village Mulbagal Taluk Kolar District. V _ _ "u,..Respondents
(By Sri R.V. Shivananda Reddy3'for'V V A_ M.R. Nanjunda Go*wda Assoicéaitesg-\_d»'s'l,)_ This Cr4i.rn.ina';i'3'Appea| is filedjj-:,lnd(e'r' Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C.byfthe3'Sta'tej'--.eP'u~b(lic'Prosecutor for the State praying to grant*ie_ave t_o'=fi'l"e an____app%eai against the Judgment dated 2i9".§;20Cf6 in'7fSpl."CfC.No,4'5/2003 on the file of the II Addl. SVessi.onsV'J-tidgge, K'o.|_a'i=-.__--acquitting respondent/accused for the offence puni.shab«l.e3"'under Section 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w 14.9 of IPC a'nd.. under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST_(POA)'=.Ac"t 1_989;~._ ' C_rimin'aivv----.A.--ppea| coming on for hearing this day, 'V\:/.«SL_JVHRI A"Pi?/\_RA._O, 3., delivered the following :
_ _ . .3 LQ.Q_£Ll1l' represented by Mulbagal Police Station V ; iiledithie(aip'oeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of Code of kn"':jCrirnjunavl" Procedure against the judgment and order dated: 29"' September 2006 passed in Spl.C.C.No.45/O3 l 4;» :3»/3 -3- on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, wherein the learned Sessions Judge found the respondewntsnot guilty of the offences under Sections 143,3V.:w1'%iV7',i'j-:1489} 324, 326 r/w. Section 149 of IP_C..a_nd un'd'e.r'.';VSect'_i_on.3"=.
(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste scneatiriea (Prevention of Atrocities Act')-,....:'i~9%89.A'l' ' . if
2. The prosecutionfca:5ie __as follows:
On 8.9.1995, had been to Balla village. he parked his cycle punctured. He therefore questvior.-.ed.the_"r'espondents--accused who were 'present th"er_e asltov*s(hy::_"they have punctured the tyre of the'Aa'cc.us.ed abused him. Thereafter, PW--1 Gangulappa went to accused Nos.1 jiilabused them also. Subsequently on the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with clubs and sickles, went to the house of _,P.\§\/-1 Nagaraja and abused him in filthy language. \l QM;
-4- Respondents 1 and 2 assaulted wi.t'h"a-:clu'b~:o'n his"
head and his back. Respondents;3e'..an'd._14A.' "'-a's'sae._ulte_d CW--3 Gangulappa with clubs,' l-'{'esponden't;s ajndl assaulted PW--3 -Srinivasa hack and caused injuries to PWs':.'1..g_andV'3_'and ~--V"Gangulappa. Immediately after the went to the Government 10.9.1995 at about 1.15gp.n_i...V,5"~-PEEF:i5S:i._yiVs'ited the hospital and recorded l5Vi/---.1-and registered a case in Crime 'respondents. Immediately he seized 'the shViViit;4l'il..O;::Zy~ produced by PW--1. He visited h8fne?5a%5*%"vCa diadcasseizasi tisaeinglaaaoeei Pol'i~c.e.._A_v'A'fte'r___completion of investigation and after 'Wound certificates, PW--12 -- Deputy 9 Superi.n'te.n'd'ent of Police filed charge sheet against the 'A ._resp_ondents.
\;r _£'V,%/,4'/, -5-
3. The trial Court framed charges 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w. Section _--1'4'9'm5ff.lIPC.and°'» under Section 3 (1)(x) & 3 (2)(v) Qf.Sche_.dul'e'Ca's.te.;3i Schedule Tribe (Preventionlg-of against the respondents. is one oftotal denial. it i A it
4. In ordetjwtio of the accused, the proseci.;itio"r_i--.iii"witnesses and relied on Exs.P--.--1 4. On evaluation of the entire.' gg'0.'rl.:"»~--te*cord, the learned Sessions Judge found the-. not guilty of the offences for vvhich the~y_Vwere:' charged on the ground that the 'VeviClVenc°e'Hfof'injured witnesses and eye witnesses is not Aconsiste-ri't«,._'n cO.r--i'oborative and their evidence is not the medical evidence. Accordingly, 7-'~.__"-l.earned.__Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal,-'t'he*«Sta.te hasffiIVe'di'.«thi~s 9 appeaL
5. We have heard--..,,:',:"'Sri Addl.SPP and the learned coun*s.el=appeariélngonlibehalf of the respondents. Wef-._ha\'fe :.bee._n_t--a%ken through the evidence of the witnesses'a_Vnd'__'th9Ve judgment.
6. Th.e",:11'o__iVnt.- for is "whether the Trial Court w.a_s .acquitti,ng the accused for the offences for i./vhiclf~.. charged?".
The"case»hoflthevorosecution is that on 8.9.1995, been'"to'""Balla village to the flourmill and his ..4'p.unctured. When he questioned to the accu'sled,_'.t9he\f abused him. Thereafter, PW--1 Nagaraja «V and'"C\./V"-93 Gangulappa went to accused Nos.1 and 6 and ..,.abL:sedVlthem also. Therefore, on the next day i.e., on .._'9,._'9'.~1A995, the accused formed themselves into an _,unlawful assembly, armed with clubs and sickles, went \/9 /V -7- to the house of PW--1 and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him. They also assaulted PW--2 and'-.,'Q'l/-3
-- Gangulappa and caused injuries. The,-3pros'eic~uti'L>n examined PWs.1 and 3 who h_ave.__saic;1"wtg.fhaye,'_'_been""~. received injuries at the hands of;"the:'_AaCcus'ed". injured Gangulappa was no-t5exam.i"i1ed' .on.: t'hVVe"'vground"' that he subsequentlydied. .
8. PW-1.has stated.-j that, PW--2 Narayanaswaijf1')lW'li*_en:f_: and when he parkedvyvhis Vt.,h€m_f::iourmill, the tyre of the cycle he questioned the accused wh_Vo..w'erer._v'pr:esent there, but the accused .--=._threfa§ten__edV__ sent him away. He therefore returnje'd:_to,"'the..village and informed about the incident. The,reaftve.r,'"3'cast about 7.00 p.m. on the same day, f'~.-»._'_'V-.himse|"f,vV__APW-2 and one Gangulappa went to the house of jV"'acc,U.§.ed.No.1 and questioned him as to why he abused _,P\;'§V-2 and came back to their house. On the next day \; e:;m;;\/~ -8- i.e., on 10.9.1995, when PW--1, l3;'=N-2:'and'"o.t_hers:we--re'ait their house, the respondents'-l.V_ and 2 vc.arn_e'5._th*e'Vre: and-V assaulted PW--1 with sickle onu:h.i.s'~Vhead'."Accused No.1 assaulted on him wvithf-clu_b ion"~«.his"~s_houlder. When PWs.2 and CW--3--Gangulappa"_'in;terfe'ré,d,f..they were also assaulted. P\j/l/'-'2_i'_'~3 the eye' the incident. He has stated=i'.--h'e had been to the flourmill ---- -the '~--cy.c'le and when it was eunctured, he._vasi;<ed_ the accused who were present here as to wi*iy~..tAh'ey'«pu~nctured the tyre of the cycle, the accused and sent him away. On the nexteiday, at ab_o'u't p.m., himself, PW--2 and CW-3 A~wereHstanding near the house of PW--1. All st.h'e_r--a'cc_Vus_ed%"came there, armed with clubs and sickles. and 2 assaulted PW--1 with hands and I_clubs... V'"""\.'l_/hven PW-2 and CW--3 --Gangulappa interfered, .j_=they...,&wVsere also assaulted with clubs and sickles. /Xccolrlding to him, accused Nos.5 and 6 assaulted PW--3 -9- Srinivasa. Accused Nos.3 and 4 assa»LAi.:lfted'~l.::C.\N§3'---«.. Gangulappa with clubs and sickle-ls. 3
9. PW--3 another injubi'--evd~'~.,person__ has in his? evidence that on the date of..--th'e..in-.c'ide.nt'at aloout 5.00 p.m., the accused came to the" house of PW--1 and at that time, he was not to know about the accused' PW--1, he went there and and 2 were abusing PW--1 Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW--1 -- Gangulappa intervened, accused l\io_s;1. a:_s;'saulted him on his chest with _ club»s;.""i-le further' stated that, when he intervened, assaulted him with club on his left hand arm, was fractured. Thereafter, all of them wentllto Vthleijfiovernment Hospital at Mulbagal. A' PWs.6 and 7 are the eye witnesses to the inciident, they did not support the case of the -10- prosecution. PW-6 has stated that' acc,us,ed«NVoS.Z_'andH'4 l assaulted PW--1 with clubs and Aalccu"sed~ PW--2 and CW--3 Gangulappa. [:}anlch:» witnesses for the seizure of thewclubslllatthe instance of accused No.5 did case of the prosecution. Even, he sustained only one certificate shows that: According to PW--1, "i*nVj«u"§ries on the left shoulder and on?,th'e' wound certificate reveals that he sustaine'd_siV>:< »*in:j_,ufries, out of which, injury No.6 is gr.i_evous in"na_.ture and injury Nos.1 to 5 are simple in . and 3 have stated in their evidence that"ac'c.use'd._N--os.1 and 2 assaulted PW--1 and caused two"iVnjuVrieSj_ PW--1. According to PW-3, accused No.1 *,Vonlyu'assa,u'llted him on his left hand. He clearly stated in xv":jhiis'lievidVence that he sustained only one injury. Thus, theleividence of PWs.1 and 3 who said to have been 'i .£~«;;/ -11- sustained injuries at the hands of the ac_c'L:is'e"¢j'~V.'§i;s..T supported by the medical eviden_ce.g_ Bo.th"'F':l.N~s§"1»:
have not stated about the presence-arivdu'paérticiépat-i_orz.sol' accused Nos.3 to 6 in the crim___e. Bu_t"," the PWs.2, 5, 6 and 7 have state'dVi.tha_t thle-other accused 3 to 6 have also participated Theevidence of injured witnesses and is not corroborative presence and participation' in the crime. Their evidence" the medical evidence with regard' sustained by them.
The Trial7Court-V._ t'i1_ei*e'Fore rightly found that the
-'W._pro:3ge'cuEtion_ has"fai..!.ed to proved the guilt of the accused for"thge--v.__offeln:ce_s for which the accused are charged. Ther'e'fore¥7T"we:= are of the considered view that there are .p no i'.nfi..rr'niti'e.s and cogent reasons to interfere with the and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial i7jsx%bé/nk -12-
11. The prosecution has alleged that the accused insulted PWs.1 and 3 touching their caste and accused are charged for the offence Section 3 (1)(x) and of SC ST Atrocities) Act. PW--3 has only stated';in'-hi's:"eyiVd'ienEej that accused abused him languagveif;"Bu~t;; his'-S' evidence is silent about thevifacctigsedl"insulting him touching his caste. The._'Tria.l.i"'VCou:rtjrightly found the accused not gg.ii«l-fly of the €ofTf:ei1.ceivi"_unde"r Section 3 (1)(x) SC 8: ST (Prie4ye:n't_i'o'n7oVf 'At.ro"ci.tVi:es'):_Act.
any reasons to interfere with the Judgrnent._of'._t'hVe}T'rial Court. Consequently, the v .3 ppea'«!. fi led __by the . .S.ta~te is dismissed. 53cL/é JUDGE sa/.3 \ JUDGE