State By Pavagada Police vs Dharmapal on 24 March, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

State By Pavagada Police vs Dharmapal on 24 March, 2008

Bench: V.Jagannathan

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE -.    
.__  m    

V V L'  AI$:2ELLANT
(By Sri H.C.SIDDAG;€§iF--GA-IiA}§,.A A M

1-31,: uj'nnﬁ.n"a.I.  .'
1 unﬁnnwmrnué A

 .... ..§_/go%¢H%z5<1{A.%A:wa:NAéPA§ 21 YRS.

Rf '5"i'_SU§!i'KAi'<"LAKUh'TE WLHLGE,

PAvAGa%9A Tmpx. %

2  "£iANUNiANT}!.I:§RAY:APPA
% 1, sin NARAs:M'H'A MURPHY, 36 YRS,
 PJATAA-S_iVUh!!€_ARL-A.!{l_IIiTE VILLAGE,

 _ EAVAG TALUK.

%    T%3*%%4i"%MAibALETAPPA

 Si  E'i"ARASii\iAi'iA'r'PA, -'+3 "1'RS,
. If!' SUNKARLAKUNTE VILLAGE,
PAVAGADA TALUK.

 V.  z4|+=~ :" CPURADAMARAPPA

 0 0B..A.!.-ESHA.PP.&, 31 YRS,
R/AT SUNKARLAKUNTE VILLAGE,

FAVAGADA Tau' ' U

 RESPONDENTS

(By Sui 'v' F' AD'v'., Sri H v RAJARAJ, ADV FOR R1, R3 AND R4 ) 2 THIS CRL.A. FiLED u~_;s.37sg1~_) 85 £59 cH.P.(:_:eY_ THE STATE P. P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THTE' '1'-!_D.N'BLE eons'? M-AY BE P1.-E-AsE.r.> To c.=H.A.HT LEAHE T9.' APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT. 17..7e;2oo2 "PA$SE'D._ B': THE C.J.{J:"s'.i'u'v'} as u'l'ViFCu, P:'i.V:'_a-G-f'u')';*x., TH c.€;_.tHa. 247101, ACQUITTING THE REE3PO;'£«DEi§lTS_.--ACl3U-SED Eon; THE OEEEHCES PIU/'S. 143, :147.,143, 4-=13, a4ﬁ;3:24.,.EjW size. 149 or" [PC AND sEc. 7(1)"pE*P.-c.R.E,Acfr,_ 1955V;' v ._ THIS APPEAL COMING FOR ~E1ﬁAL}¥IEAEiNG THIS DAY, THE COURT EELIVEHED HEOLLOWJNG:

The question the judgment of bytes Court in favour of the of the otfenees punishable under sectioias 143; 147,1§$e;448, 342, 324 r_lw section 149 of I§V'lJu(".. ...-..tV'%.-.43.-..-. nun .4' t;r1DE\ any 13::

..z¢:r.\.n auu --s..E.Iu:A V: '.1; um 1 \..Il.\-I-'I nut. Awuu. 3 case of the prosecution in brief is to the :2 rm ' ....m...._+ +I.--._..'; __ __ _ VVIIIJIJ I-nllla DIJIIIIJIEIIJEII l.'El3JG.I% F3 'I IV' cu-I-an-rs 1-I-an nnrnnlnlnnrnt Ifnmnurnvsnnnn AA Lalonﬁ with his wife returned to the house accompanied V' * other women ofthc village as-all ofthem had gone to attend a pooja of the deity Muthyalamma, at that time the accused persons came to the house of PW-I and .-.I_--.-4-.1-I I-'mg -.;-;---n.-.'4-:-;a-o-4-'n- -I'.-...»...H-. I-urn I-a\'p~:c-gnu I-'again cyan'-An U ECU. U113 '3\'ul.l.'lu.IlJﬂlltp§ Iuuu" 'J.' In-Ilél-I \J§.§IK3 name and thereaﬁer-wands the accused persons (\ W .' I' (FW-2') within the house and tlr1e1'eaI't.' -c;wa1'de complainant's wife Laxmidevamma namely, Savithramma (PW--3), Anjinamma (PW---6) were it accused committed the reason behind the assatlitie the being given by to the accused Demonic i »t.ki1e:i'iIi.cide!:t in question, PW-- 1 lodged

9. cimp:ai_t to-.. 3.11:1 mi-1o rm-s;si__._._mhniah., ____ _I ' " of ' ' pence" " station mg1*""te::eu toe"

C1'iNo;1..l,.0v/2000 based on the complaint Ex.P1. ' iﬂiliijaneya, C.P.I took over further investigation ' ~ ma the investigation by collecting the ti!'-xi'-q.nnI'A La '. a ' -

4 In nrriar t ant H 11 he mane nunirm, th . .. .. .. .. ....,,...._........ .. I'D P 80011660', the pI'OS¢3Cl1ﬁ0I1 em 1' 'T Wi'u"1esac''" " "3 1".'-VV3 1 12, got marked documents Ex.Pl to P13 apart from exhibi@ three objects riemely, a piece, twoclubsai' astcn". me -ueu 61 q is 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution and did not the evidence in their defence.

5. The learned Trialkdxudge, the evidence on the H prosecution in complai1~zaIit.;'o;_.;&; felt not to on testimony of such . . ' . 'A A mialy because of the said reason E:

at E':

but inconsistent version spoken to along zrtnf. I urfnnnnpn urifh 1'9 thgg Hun-D -I'-In-In.r.--In-I-I 1' aim:-II:-I'!-fl-twain! II Ania. J .' Another lacuna was found in ~. "case by the learned Trial Judge was that the who supported the prosecution case did not i. " 'sepeciﬁcany say in their evidence as to who assaulted (in Cal'-'W Ilrhnm and I_|rit_h I_l_7gannn , ﬁn the a%u:-. 'I'f'I'ﬂ'l'l'l'I'"'hIﬂ II ulﬂillalulu IQIQ Ii 5 I WC vi' TH YUP IIXXXIIUIVWW the T1131' ' Count' also found that" ' the pmosecu non" had failed to place medical evidence on record in order to l'\ ﬁt corroborate the testimonv of the iniured witnesses with v or ounm-:-uooul as I-'nuns In}.-«Jan I-A '$4-1-nan '-\¢4-nu-n .1-\_4-nuugnvasam-'V'. Gsﬂlll I" HID "gm 5 BIIILI W 15": IJDGII. I..-I1l.IwGk.!._ ' Edit}!!! I-

IP by the accused persons with deadly fit?' 7¢n% these ﬁndings, the learned oonclusion that the more beyond A 'doubt. the order' __..-..u.;_1 ..-..... ...___....: J..I.._.....}..-$4...." ,1.:..... Lu', mania... 4..- ...._4*..., U1'. Wu" U1 V. will l.l.lI;..-=f.'Mﬂ.l.l.'p 111.01 5 this appeal before l r r31_..."'..' °'. '~ for The learned has remained absent. I have the entire material on V the State has made out a case for d i' t . by t..h.i.s ennrti '._o-cu-up.

he min . .o_r eone1der_'a1_i_o.-=

-- ---up v- -- am- I-------v--- _.I_..

~ A.' _ -_ __ .__1 .u_ _ I_._____I r\__._.._....._.._ __..4. I'll- '. 5- I'CgBJ.'(l Lilli: 16811160 UOVl.:I'.ll1l.ll'.7l1l. 1" 1!.'-ﬂu ' = that the prosecution has proved its case by examining the complainant as well as the other injured persons and therefore the Trial Court could not have

-t It In vats:-no van --

di br-Ali - - he testi...on_I,r of the material I.I.ri.t.n.esses F' / I ,\ On withstanding the fact that they were all close relatives.- . - iieiiee, aippiscinuon of evidence by the is CI'l'DI1l3UllB uuu an 'liliuu 3. Uuuu nus: uuuI..i-- this court to interfere against _the>oniei*"of " 'V "-'"" "f "*4 ""m"esai_d sub?;'geeions"*m...n.'..<ie 05 En' EF-

I I:

h :-

and having regard to the of the imerrem with the eiuiei- anii,i¢,,cw of the Apex Court the evidence on if the Trial the view taken by the anothexjview is also possible} iewith :11 law forming the background ' ?.=-.1-=_iﬁ«...=a-....ng re-..g-.;1'c1. to the well semen: position Qﬂaw fthe pméseouﬁon will Irv' to ;'u'"u'v'e i"' "'"'- beyor i~¢ imnloi [able doubt, I proceed to examine ? § E; Ea.

V' n : ._on'r'eeord.

_9. The prosecution has examined-as many as 12 witnesses. The focus will have to be on the testhnony of Pws1to3andPWs6to8becausetherestoftheeye Ev / ._ I 7 witnesses examined have not supported the prosecution case-i tam. It as.

IMO 1 lb 5;: 3;]; in d Lpute that ahcve materiai witnesses are close teiat.i'v*es and is no independent eye witness evidence 4_ testimony of the close relativee: of the it

10. PW-1 Naiayarmppa has deposed in his prior to giving evidence, atieeaboutj " the pooja was being 1'.'-.;..*"'~"'--I' -2' the vi1.19.ge, the there, up a in mind, assaulted 1=w}.1 -ieg and themeaiterwards the assault Sanjeevappa who was ults llulisiig 1}.ua vvsusuuu 11139 »A all the accused persons and also mentions

- fiia.mui'tee.n§gssmmmd by the accused no. 1. HIV-2 in the his evidence has stated that all the accused in the name of his caste and the incident.

witness says that all the accused assauited with stones and sticks and it was in Event of his house that the 3/ 7'.

Q sirniiar by s"tﬁq e-* the incident 1'iI"i_p_!_aII__::uUu""' '1 front of her house and at that time assaulted her with clubs and stones. says in her evidence that all here it I-qmraasdnr uunpnvuvunup -au---u-p -1 -.--u--u-- --.--___ ' ----._ .,.,rg__h gfnru-. hrinlrn an ".1; "an mi .. ' than happened about two performance of . ppoja' V" ' jé PW -7 Laxmidevamxna years prior to her she was assaulted, Ganganuna says 't her with stones and brick pieces and _ - with clubs and the incident back and she does not mention ".;...i..

-C1 .. Coming to the m'oss--examina.tion portion of the H the V "'ax'-at".-'Ire carton'-until')! U'U_1 'a ueﬁt seaplane ef incident.

I "::~ V suuuulnn Luavcvciuwg 1 VI' 9;.'-I.'-.--.u"!' incident, he gave a complaint and took also says that there is enmity between him and the accused as they belonged to diﬁemnt political parties. iv //<.

He also admits a case having been against CW-5 and CW--10 by the accused no.3. PW£i}"-.iI1 his who cross-examinatzion says that he does not..." abused whom as he was inside the ..._d.. I...-....-- J.-.5.-sl-1 Iicugii 1'II!r.'|i§'é"IH"I£.v|l"li1\.'0'\U'I. ':I"I d"S nut. nu '\1'1u ' :'iu."'2Cu hand. PW-3 also saysethat assaulted whom aux-mg' ths msids:1s PW-6 says in similar fashion in PW-7 also ,,.ys who assaulted ...... ......... 1.... -1... Jﬁuuu 'I21 1'. uu :-

'1 '..

whom 'tan--fer'; "'"""'"

did not police that she was assau1tedV'ihy I Hanumantharyappa (Accused

- V it 12, Thns',""on close examination of the testimony of t witnesses it becomes clear that all the i' omnibus t t .m . t hv mung, in their w-4-no can -- u------..----__...--__ ._ .. evidence that the accused persons assatiited P'v'vi-1 and it - .,_uo'd1ers. The place of incident is spoken to differently by each of the witnesses and the oocurrenoe is also not spoken to consistently by them because some of them

-r\1I'I' fhn -innilhant tn 9 an hank nnr_1 9 sh;-:39 am: 11; I.l.|- ldJ.l.o usvaunua uv an vmaaou -an nu... -- ------1, J' V} V §l I,-Ll J.I.li!' I0 happened one year back. It is on the basis of the said evidence of the material witnesses, the opined that the witnesses do not hi tnctctm The place toffi whom is not very the "

material witnesses for 'Thegﬁom, it is unsafe to accept _oi'.esuch vtritnesses to ht; V ..,._ .._-,..-.,__ ,V___.__,_ _ .- '. e witnesses do ri.'.e- .11 not uuuu i"' "f Lu."

aecu assaulted witli __ -- ' case projected through _ witiiessesﬁiat HIV-1 and other sustained injuries V o:i"_j..the assault with the weapons like stick, A f'oi'theomi11g' in order to suhtantiate the tes"""* 'Ty' 'f * prosecution witnesses with regard to the injuries sustained by them ) though the investigating oﬁcer has in his evidence stated that he collected the wound ll record to support the testimony of the material urifnennng 'l'I1nrpfn1'v=- it rt n1'19_ he nnid Hunt 1- 5 vv GBIDQ artist 0 4 &&\JJ Iiasrslr Ii' III.-.l..I.I. IJIJ IJKJ I.nI_E-II. Inﬁl- prosecution has proved its case beyond aii doubt.

14. The Trial' ' Court 1-anon' i above factors found to inconsistent and Pws 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 to As witnesses di_rf3_.~ in my...-:..1 mm "inn. iiicidentf of assault by e 1 am of the view that the not committed any error in acquitting tlie' The View taken by the 1-.;é....mA .i...4.{.. mm 1... ...m +.. i... .. ......=..n.1- ..4.._...

" ' 11 V I-ll-4 ﬁll"-I I-I-I Ilka E I-J\IU9ll-I-II-I 'I'll-lVU s the totality of the evidenee on record. As = Axsucli, in appeal cannot interfere with such a by the Trial Court merely because another also possible. Unless it i shown the View V' kt! I-1-In rt':-Ihn' ('nus-t -in hnvlurnumnn 1111!' E '-£uIIK\-ﬁll I-I', I-I--IND Isl-I-2-I LI\lIuII-L I3

-I-If-vsnru 'IM\ 'I' A 'II V9134 E-II-ll. \J|JJlI-LEI.' I-I43'-'0 evidence on record, it is inlpermlssible for the Appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. ﬁr \ 1 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal lacikaj merit and is dismissed.

Dvr:

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court