Shabbir Ali S/O Imamsab Mashal vs The State Through Grameen Police ... on 9 July, 2008

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shabbir Ali S/O Imamsab Mashal vs The State Through Grameen Police ... on 9 July, 2008

Bench: N.Ananda

 .i~ cn'ﬁ' off; ' I.

_  '   Patil, Aciv.)

 gay spa 2:; the am

IN THE man mum on' KARNATAKA
cmcurr BENCH AT GULBARGA
BEFORE __ Q
THE HOWBLE MR.     
DATED THIS THE 918   
CRIMINAL REVISION Pmjfmou N0.'Zi_§ 
1. Shabbir ali    _

2. Ja%  -. ' "
Age about 22 

3. lmran_s;lo.Gi'1@n  
__ Age Vagigout 20  Occv::l-Iamai.

4L-.1'  % ,s;o.Auauwma Nmhanrm' .
  0oc:Hmal.

   



gamed by ﬁe I Addl. JMFQ  Q3
110.1478/2004 and she tbs   =19..4.._9%0O'I'r_

med by the m.  C33. "s._ %.

No.94/2006.

day, the Court made   ..  

o:=.,\I:~gn3jT :   

The   Neal to 4

mm»     M m 4» in ca
no.147s/2a§ ;>4%  1 Additional mm,
Gulbarga, {of  under Secﬁons 323, 324
 Thclcarnedtrialdudgw:

 L'      n 34 of IPC and sentenced mam

V    Aifmprisonﬂt for one year for m oﬁncc

M %  Section 324 r[w. 34190 and seaweed m

   pmmnabhmdmswmusmmmwahswammor
 and ﬁzxtlmcr sentenced rm to undergo emu:
  for three months hr an oﬁacc puniamhlc

N. c£;W.gW£i1\



the same, the petitioners ma: Crl.A.  . 
Sessions Judge conﬁrmd mg:   
learned Sessions Judge    af AA
three months for an   324
r/W. Scction 34 1pc.   In 4 are

before this _%;-- 
2.  V if ya xumx-,1muedamna:1m
petihoncrs'   

 *  3.  is inﬂows.-

V  Muruf runs a bi d Bnland Parvez

cmxiy,  z=w.2 is the young brother of PWJ and

 _»heisxal$o;_wi4>r&.gi11tmsaiibakze1y.

VA   wééam the maxi' mtg ot'Ch%%' ' Bhagwam GaB).,' Gummy.

4. 611 11.1.2004 at 3.30 pm, accused Neal mttmw

ncarthcbakcryofPW.1withanintcnt'nnhownguktmt=




with Mam.A1mr, PW}. mamas: aa~.aws1   £5;
awn: #1 scene newt his ha-leery.  
that plant. Accused rm. 1 an   are A A T'
intervention. Accused raga. 1 tg%4'wmedf    ipwa  clubs
and caused amp:     md PW2 with
an mention to i;r;s:,1__tt   ms. 1 am:

5.    a statement before
P'W.6 -   Censtame oreunmba Rum!
A 147, 143, 323, 324, 504, 506

 

  oflPC ammst accumd Nos.1 to 4 and

911m'   3. mm --- Dnshmangouda treated PW2

 womtui cer%cah:' an per Ex.P5. PWE8 -

    mm PW3 and usual' a wound ccrwca1sc' as

_ _ --   After completion ofinvwtigation, a charge sheet
 ﬁnd against accused. The trial court convicted the

£ aocusad for omamcs punishable under Sections 323, 324

and504madwi'thSection34ofIPC. 'l'hc1"App:lmr:Comt



ommcs punishable ma Sections 323   
seem' a 34 oft!'-'C and aoqu1tted' tI:§Aédcased..._    

learned Scssaons' Jtﬂge mdmﬁ     3 of 

 

three months R): an qﬁfencek  '    ' 324

rlw. Section 34 IPC.

6. The   trial court and

accused  df  under Sections 323,
324 mamwh   340: Court in its manna!' '

 

7.   in AIR 1999 so 931 (STATE op'

     ILLATH JATHAVEDAN

' " 'the Supreme Court hm held 'the HQ Court

  _  1% ' s does network as m @ihtc court

H  not n:-appmch tr: the cvidcncc, unlcw 9% ghrm
'V is poinind out which may show that injustice hm
  done. In rcvﬁon @5331 acquittal w n of

N

aévwwﬂw



ma 'oldinmﬂy it would not be    A

oonc1us1on'  '  __  been " V

appreciated by the Magistrate Va:-2§éi:!l"aa_   Judge
map . ..._ . _ .

In    . V1;y.:id above dec1sim' ,

n:--appmciaté _thc-  some glaring cum' is

oommitmd by  éppmcu-awn' ' of mamas' .

in View  "this, 'V 1"  the following points for

 'V  ' tion of evidence: and ﬁndings'

 orhwgfpmoedurc?

A VV£'ht:t1'1e1V'"'the ﬁndings moonied by the comm below are
 _  by wrong appreciation ofevidenoc?

" 1n Oldﬂl' to bring home the guilt of the accused,

 'A tion has mm on the ma' mac of ma. 1 to 10.

Beforcadvcrl:ingtothecvid¢noc,itisnecc#topointaut



é,

mm' glaring arms <xmmtk=d' by the   
the maze of prosecution that  Flag.    V

neartm balmry of PW-1 to   

Nos. 1 to 4 were quam=1m8' W15      %

the place. The    Ami' to
prove the genesis of  have not

9. mg;   an; about 3.39
eating  %bakeV At that mac' , some persons

 up   Altai'. PW-1 told those persm m

V.   Those persons tried to assault said

 wild agmst P'W-1 stating that he was

 ﬁat said Altafmnning away from the phoc. so

 %    time persona mums: pwq and his bromer PW~»2

V %   PW-2 sustaizmd hlceding injuries on his head. Accused
 A  No.1 Sabirand accused No.2 Jammulm Pws. 1 ma 2

E



with sticks and otbmr persons pm-sent unth'     

we. 1 and2.  

On the same day at  7m. ia.m._ me 2C

went to police station and   sent

them to a General    were: ﬂan to

  has arm' that
accused    prior to the date
of    number of persons
mom that  has given the new of

 4  of ﬁzat mfom:a' tion report, we ﬁnd

of PW-1 Wm mcordccl by PW»? Jahcreppa in

 M t Hospital at Gumarga. Contrary to mm,' Pﬁlw

  that on 11.1.2004 at 7.09 p.m. he went to

 station and lodged a complaint a per exhﬁit P1. PW-

lhasdcposod,policehasmoonledhisﬁ1rthcrsmet. On



careful consideration of the stamment marked    

we ﬁnd that mm has not stated    A
accused with a club. pw-1 hm staﬁug,  . 1  
and other four persons    " L'
some persons came ta.  tmt
evidence of pw-1   ma PW-I
does not     of ﬁrst
iaformaﬁorg.   was assaulted by
is  by medial evideme.
In the    stated that he
was  vhy  1 and 2. The mcdical
 ﬁr. smivm and injtny emiacate

    would disclose that PW-»1 had suﬁtzmd
 

tn  upper lip

 [Looxiiznxiion over upper latnrai aspect of left upper arm

.    Abrasion over middle of me}: on right side mcasmhg 2

 cms. X 0.5 In.



10

Thus, we hd the cvideazuzm of PW-1 is not   

so. PW-2Arﬂ'ist1zeyc'»uL.gcr:_ Bmiht.'  "I'_o2i'.::f"'@;'-.*....ltHu!1:1ruiZ: % 

PW-2 has deposed that on  3 to 4
picked up quarrel   Amused No.1
msaulted on thchead qt?    Accuaed No.2
Jafar      occurrence we-2
W38 exammed' ..,.    ..   .0... W...
issued by B:-.s1m  "   95- From the
ooﬁtents of    m exhibit P5, we %d
that P'W~2     injmy to h'm ma. Pw-5
1;-if[s.uma;.ago' _    that PW-2 had not auaemd
 J.  eviicncc given by PW--5 and

   ' maker! as cxhﬁit P5, evidence

  Bias. 1 and 2 had assaulted PW-2 with

A K  had suﬁemd in;my' to his head and evidence' of
   accused No.1 assauﬁw cm hk head with' stick'

 be accepted. The prosecutioxa hm hﬁad to

 ﬁubstanﬁatc oral cviamoe 01' Pills. 1 anti 2 by medical

NI  Q"\vV''-Cé)¢x :

evidence.



11. In the ﬁrst information PW-1 has   

has relied on the   P7 wmeiu

it is statrsd   wounci over the
At     'ho state, ﬂan
    wen: amed with a
  bakaezy of Pw-1. On me other
  statcd that accused 1 am 2 were

   wh  clv§'_1~.-33$' these circum' smncca,  ' has
' "   to how PW.3 had sustained an 

1/'

 be mused by a sharp cutting object. The

_ H   ﬁofcvidcnce ofPW-3 e1t1'u:r' rcgardmg' $11 on hhtn
 sum:1txi by him, would creategmve suspkion in

N z:§,\.~.£L»'vC£~...« .



12

the case of prosecution that accused 1 and 2   

i"-'W3. I to3ncm'thc smp ofPW-l.v.-V  

12. 1391-4 Babu is  

occu;rrcncc. PW-4 has mt   _   1 '
and he was treated as cross-
exmm tion of pw-4 nothmg"   dubetandete the

case of p1oseqn;tf:dz1;- 

13.   on certain day police
had taken   : The  se'a:c:d two
came from me  At this ;um:tmc' , 'H
is relcvanf.'to sta;é   have not deposed when the

half  pf   fem, cvitlmcc of r=w--5 ze1atmg' to

 'seizure'    the bakery of PW»! is of no

  Mohddanimia is stated to he an eye wmm to
ineidenz PW--6 hm deposed am on a cemdn day, at
 3.30 pm. that was sum amen near the bakexy of
 PW-6 has deposed the accused mind Para. 1 and 2.

am. cQ»«c»/-«4-»



PW-6 has givmz aﬁ together a (111  
Nos. 1 and 2 ﬁsted ws. 1 and 2.   V'
impression acxmsed Nos. 1 and 2   
when they  1=w1 31111  :
pxocumd clubs from   1 and 2.
Pws. 1 and 2 have  accused No.2
assaulted on    and caused
bleeding   to this, FW-
5 has  ﬁuxn an mouth of
PW-1  ingjmy on the lea knee ofPW-2
mi %      a, N6 hm i . I M
    at the time of occuﬁ. He

 4 amuzmd Pws. 1 md 2 with clubs.

PWs,:_V1  not deposed that accused Nos. 3 and 4

  'them with clubs. PW-1 has not deposed about the

  ofaocused Nos. 3 and 4 atAplmc ofoocurrmec. It

A/'

V'   i8'§0bFVl0' us PW-6 has gnrﬁ impmvaed' version 83 implxw

 , accused Nos. 3and4.   W"



14

15. PW-1 has deposed that on tlx: date  

he went to police station and  a  " 2 

the contents of exhibit P1 would 

Gumaxﬁ. In cxhbit P1,    e:£(§orscmu1t
that on 11.1.2004 3!   ofPW-
No.6[2004.     have dwosed

that PW-1    to PW~9. Thus tho
written complaint    at the ﬁrm mi

has been   TR prosecution
r='t.ea+cv'«¢sf  .' V    .
 versaon of occurrence by suprpzﬁ the

 v       _____  Q\,L»5,,,

 by PW-1.  the ﬁrst

  mm: of accused Na. 1 to 4
 othef  ... -5'»   us. The ﬁrst infoxwzion report

   aims am information would disclose

_ V»  2004 was Ieglkmxed agmst accused Nos. 1
   other 4 -- 5 persons ﬁoroﬁi.-noes prumbale tmtlcr
  147, 143, 323, 11W. 149 190. in the ﬁrst

 h::%tVbrmaﬁon1cpo1tthcmianond'urencctoaoc11sedNos.3aa



15

4. However, charge sheet wm ﬁled agmst  I

to 4. The investigating oﬁccr has not 

'Then: is not even m  of 

Nos. 3 and 4. It is not the   tha1 

accused Nos. 3 and 4,:aag;   2; ' %wr§.1 has not

3   of oocurxcncc. However,
PW-6 has'   assaulted by accused Nos.
3 and 4   is not the case: put forth by the

   .....

°1¢.=%,." ':'«1;1 i-faomplaint PW--I has stated that he um med 1 and 2. Bowevcr, PW-1 hm improved ms ve1'si¢i12,V__AAby deposing that accused Nos. 1 md 2 msaullu! hixﬁrwitn crabs. PW-2 who was amulted by accused Noa 1 and 2 with club was mm in the hospital. m wound certiﬁca%3ema1'kodascxhibitP5doesnotdhc}oeeany external injury on the head ofPW-2. av Hi Q

-I6 1?. Therefore, learned V b that Pws. 1 and 2 had no motive WV Nos. 1 to 4. xx: fact they WM } %t __ A 2;


'I'hcmeforc evidence of    on
the basis ofocrtain    _
The   registered against
accused     -V'-' 5 persons h' oﬁnccs
punishable '    324, 504, 506
r/w. I49    first 'Information report

would ml then: was an unlawful and in ﬁmuemace of the o2:j:§.'<,»1;_ P919. 1 and 2 were wsaulted by V . ' highly discrepant evidence of PW-1 to A it is not mine to hold the ' rm .25 at accused Nos. 1 to 4 assaunm 1'-'W3. 1 ma 2 mm' The oral evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 does not and éormboration fmm, tbs medical evidence. The wnttc.n' 3%': 5"*""""9Q'"' suppressed by the information report would 5 were present at the wnuld lead to an Wm' that pmvwﬁén the «amm-

These evidence adduced by the by the ttiai court and the first Court had to re-

appxeciatc the V .

195"' and far the is stateda that pmwcution has failed to gains' t accused and judgments of V _ and the ﬁn-It appellate court cannot be result, {pass the ﬁallawing:

The appellant: mmycd as aecuwd Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1478/2064 on the ﬁle of the I Add]. JMFC, N Dbwgwﬁb...

am acquitted of the oﬁcnoes p k 324 r/w. 34 rm. The bail 1' to 4 stand cancelled.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court