Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Bannareddy S/O. Hanumareddy Kurahatti on 4 December, 2017
Bench: S.Sujatha, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100108/2014
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
NAVALGUND POLICE STATION
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P.)
AND:
1. BANNAREDDY
S/O. HANUMAREDDY KURAHATTI
AGE: 55 YEARS
2. DHIRMAREDDY
S/O. DEVAREDDY KURAHATTI
AGE: 41 YEARS
3. HANAMAREDDY DAVAREDDY KURAHATTI
4. RAMREDDY HANAMAREDDY KURAHATTI
AGE: 32 YEARS
Crl.A.No.100108/2014
2
5. SHIDDAPPA MAHADEVAPPA VENKANNAVAR
6. YELLAPPA SOMAPPA HALAKATTI
7. RAMAPPA BHIMAPPA @ BHIMAREDDY KADADI
8. VENKAREDDY HANAMAREDDY KURAHATTI
AGE: 45 YEARS
9. MALLAREDDY HANAMAREDDY KURAHATTI
AGE: 52 YEARS
10. SHIVAPPA LAXMAPPA KITTALI
11. MAHADEVAPPA DHARIYAPPA VENKANNAVAR
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF IBRAHIMPUR
TALUK NAVALGUND, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R11)
---
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) &
(3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
18.01.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, IN S.C.NO.1/2011 AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 18.01.2014
AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 341,
307, 504, R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, Dr.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.100108/2014
3
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below') acquitting the respondents herein (accused in the Court below) from the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504 and 307 R/w. Section 149 of the I.P.C.
2. In its memorandum of appeal, the appellant - State has taken a contention that, PW5 being the complainant cum injured, PW2 and PW3 being the injured eyewitnesses and PW1, PW12 and PW13 being independent eyewitnesses, have categorically stated about the incident and the assault made by the accused persons. The evidence of these witnesses has not been properly appreciated by the Court below. The evidence of injured witnesses has further corroborated by the evidence of medical doctors, which also the Court below Crl.A.No.100108/2014 4 has not taken into consideration. The rejection of the evidence of PW1, PW12 and PW13 by the Court below quoting the reason that they are the relatives of the injured, was unwarranted. With this, it has prayed for setting aside of the judgment under appeal and for conviction of the respondents/accused for the alleged offences.
3. In response to the notice, the accused/respondents are being represented by their counsel. The lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments from both sides.
5. In the light of the above, the points that arise for our consideration are ;
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the
respondents/accused with their common
object of assaulting and committing murder of PW2, PW3 and PW5, on 29.08.2008 at around Crl.A.No.100108/2014 5 9.45 p.m. in Ibrahimpur village within the limits of the complainant police station formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object to commit assault, being armed with deadly weapons like clubs, iron rods etc., and thereby have committed offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the
respondents/accused, on the date, time and place mentioned at Sl.No..1 above, in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained PW2(CW6) - Hemaraddi K. Kurahatti and PW3(CW7) - Lingaraddi Devaraddi Kurahatti and PW5(CW1) -
Sanjeevraddi, from moving further in front of the house of PW14(CW10) - Vardamangouda and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 341 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC?
(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place at Sl.No.1 above, the accused/respondents being the members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common object of their assembly, intentionally abused PW5(CW1) - Sanjeevraddi, PW2(CW6) Crl.A.No.100108/2014 6
- Hemaraddi and PW3(CW7) - Lingaraddi in filthy words, and thereby gave provocation to them knowing it to be likely that said provocation would cause them to breach public peace and thereby has committed an offence punishable under Section 504 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC?
(iv) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, on the date, time and place mentioned above at Sl.No.1, the accused/respondents being the members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly, attempted to commit murder of PW2 (CW6) -
Hemaraddi and PW3 (CW7) - Lingaraddi by assaulting them with deadly weapons and thereby have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC?
(v) Whether the judgment and order under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court ?
6. The summary of the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the materials placed before this Court is that, there existed a dispute between the accused Crl.A.No.100108/2014 7 on one side and CW1 - Sanjeevraddi, CW6 - Hemaraddi and CW7 - Lingaraddi and others on the other side, in respect of the boundaries of a land and regarding construction of a wall. In that connection, on the date 29.08.2008 evening, a quarrel had taken place between the 2nd accused Dhirmareddy and CW6 - Hemaraddi, which was pacified at the intervention of some elders. In continuation of the same, in the same night at 9.30 pm, all these accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of assaulting and committing murder of CW1 - Sanjeevraddi, CW6 - Hemaraddi and CW7 - Lingaraddi and armed with deadly weapons such as clubs, iron rods, sticks etc. They wrongfully restrained said CW1, CW6 and CW7 from proceeding further, in front of the house of one Laxmangouda Hiregoudar in Ibrahimpur village within the limits of complainant police station, abused them in filthy language and assaulted them with iron rod, stick and clubs with the knowledge that the injuries sustained by the assault would be sufficient to Crl.A.No.100108/2014 8 cause their death. In this regard, the complainant police charge sheeted the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC. After hearing both sides, the Court below framed charges against the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 504 and 307 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses from PW1 to PW19, got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P18 and material objects from M.O.1 to M.O.9. No witnesses were examined from the accused side and no documents were marked as Exhibits from their side.
After hearing both sides, the Court below by its impugned judgment dated 18.01.2014, acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, Crl.A.No.100108/2014 9 504 and 307 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC. It is against the said judgment of acquittal, the State/Prosecution has preferred this appeal.
7. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor in his argument reiterated the contentions taken up by them in their memorandum of appeal and further submitted that the occurrence of incident stands proved by evidence of injured witnesses as well as the eyewitnesses. The motive being the dispute with respect to erection of wall and marking of boundary between the land also stands established. Even otherwise, when the ocular evidence is available to prove the acts committed by the accused, the motive becomes immaterial. He also stated that, with respect to recovery, the evidence of Investigating Officer itself is believable and the medical evidence given by the doctors also corroborates the evidence of the injured witnesses with respect to the alleged incident. Finally relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.100108/2014 10 the case of Baleshwar Mahto and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 152, the learned Addl. SPP submitted that the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside and accused/respondents deserve to be convicted for the alleged offences.
8. The learned counsel for the accused/ respondents in his argument submitted that, the motive has not been proved by the prosecution. It has failed to prove as to which wall and which land boundary was in dispute. The evidence of the alleged supporting witnesses are very vague and bald. The alleged place of incident being a narrow lane, it is doubtful whether such an incident involving large group of people has occurred there. He further stated that, even if the prosecution case of alleged attack is believed, then the behavior of the alleged injured in not running away from the place after seeing a large mob coming to attack them would lead to a serious doubt. The alleged recovery of blood stained mud Crl.A.No.100108/2014 11 is also doubtful in view of the previous day's drizzling rain. With this he submitted that, in view of these strong admissions, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below is justifiable.
9. PW2 - Hemaraddi, PW3 - Limgaraddi and PW5
- Sanjeevraddi, who were projected as the injured witnesses in this case by the prosecution, have not disappointed the prosecution. All these three witnesses in their evidence in examination-in-chief have clearly stated that they know all the accused and that there was a dispute between the accused and them with regard to the boundary of agricultural land and also for erection of a wall in the house. The elders of the village were trying to resolve the said dispute.
10. About the happening on the day of the alleged incident, which was on 29.08.2008, PW2 has categorically stated, on the said date there was Hanumantadevara Jatra in their village. At about 5.00 pm, when he was in Crl.A.No.100108/2014 12 the said temple, accused No.2, who was there, abused him in filthy language and called him as "¨ÉÆøÀr ªÀÄUÀ£"É (a scolding) and that he would finish him. CW8 - Shivaraddi and CW18 - Yallappa went there and pacified accused No.2 and sent him back. PW2 also returned home and told about the incident to his father and uncle CW15 - Devaraddi as to what had transpired at the temple.
He has further stated that on the same day after dinner, himself along with CW1 - Sanjeevaraddi and CW7
- Lingaraddi, while were proceeding to their other house which was at a distance of 150 ft from their main house in the village, all the accused attacked them on the way in front of the house of CW10 - Vardhamanagouda, accusing these people of picking up quarrel now and then with regard to the land and they declared that they would take away their lives. PW2 has also given further details about the incident as to which accused assaulted whom and how. He has stated that accused No.9 armed with an iron Crl.A.No.100108/2014 13 rod assaulted him on his head; accused No.2 armed with club assaulted on his back and head; accused No.8, who was also armed with a club assaulted him on his shoulder, back and head; accused No.1, who was armed with club assaulted CW1 - Sanjeevraddi on left palm; accused No.7, who was also armed with a club assaulted CW1 on head and other parts of the body; accused No.3 assaulted CW7 on his left hand and head with iron rod; the other accused were dragging these people to assist the accused, who were armed with weapons to assault these people. PW2 has further stated that, at that time CW9 - Maktumsab, CW10 - Vardhamanagouda, CW11 - Sunil, CW14 - Subhashraddi, CW18 - Yallappa and PW1 - Siddappa came to their rescue. PW2 has also stated that, in the incident, himself and other assaulted persons sustained bleeding injuries. He stated that his brother Venkataraddi shifted them to Navalgund General Hospital for treatment and from there they were shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. On the next day, after their discharge, Crl.A.No.100108/2014 14 they were admitted to a private Sushruta Hospital at Hubballi, where he was inpatient for about 24 days and others for different period. He has categorically stated that, at the place of crime, there were street lights. He has identified four clubs at M.Os.1 and two iron rods at M.O.2, as the weapons used by the accused in assaulting them.
This witness was subjected to a thorough cross- examination from the accused side, where the witness maintained his original stand throughout.
11. PW3 and PW5 in their examination-in-chief have given evidence on the same line as given by PW2 in his evidence. They also have stated about the accused No.2 picking up quarrel with PW2 - Hemaraddi in the temple and abusing him in filthy language and that on the same night while PW2 and these two witnesses were proceeded to their other house in the village after dinner in the main house, the accused coming in a group Crl.A.No.100108/2014 15 attacking them near the house of CW10 -
Vardhamangouda and assaulting these people with clubs and iron rods which they were possessing. These two witnesses also have given a detailed account of which accused assaulted whom and with what weapon. Further, PW3 and PW5 also have stated that, at the time of incident there was street lights and they further identified the weapons at M.O.1 and M.O.2 as the ones used by the accused in assaulting them.
These two witnesses were also subjected to a thorough and searching cross-examination from the accused side, wherein they adhered to their original version.
PW5, who has given a detailed account of the occurrence of the incident has stated in his examination- in-chief that the accused, who came in a group from the opposite direction to attack them also abused these people as ; 'HgÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä zsª À ÀÄQ eÁ¹Û DVzÉ. ¤ªÀÄUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÃÉ wÃgÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ" (there is increase in their threat in the village, as such, have to be Crl.A.No.100108/2014 16 necessarily assaulted/weeded out). After abusing these people, they started assaulting them.) In the cross-examination of PW2, PW3 and PW5, a detailed account of the location of the houses of the assaulted in the village and their other house at the other part of the village were elicited.
PW5 in his cross-examination has also stated that all the four brothers of his father and their respective children are all residing jointly and in one house. They have six houses in their village at different places. Two houses situate abutting each other and one house about 15 to 20 feet there from and another within 15 feet there from and one another within 20 feet there from and one more about 75 feet away. He has also stated that all these houses situated on all the four directions in the village. He has also stated, the house towards which they were proceeding at the time of incident was situated about 20 feet away from the house situated abutting each other and nearby that house there was Shivanand Math. It is also Crl.A.No.100108/2014 17 come in the cross-examination of PW5 that they all resides together in the same house in the village. Though they also have their house separately, but those other houses are being used only for the purpose of sleeping. He has further stated that their house and the house of the accused situated adjacent to each other.
12. These aspects which have been elicited in the cross-examination of the alleged injured in the incident have not further been denied or disputed from the accused in the cross-examination of those witnesses. As such, it remains established that PW2, PW3 and PW5 and their family have got six different houses in the village at Ibrahimpur, but normally they stay in the main house in the village where they will have their lunch and dinner, but used the other houses for staying in the night. Thus, at the time of incident, after finishing their dinner in the main house, they were proceeding to their other house for sleeping.
Crl.A.No.100108/201418
13. No doubt PW2 in his examination-in-chief at one place has stated that in between their main house in the village, where they had dinner and the house towards which they were proceeding in the night, there were no other houses in between. However, in the very next sentence he has stated that while on their way in front of the house of CW10 - Vardhamangouda, the accused attacked them.
14. PW3 and PW5 in their cross-examination have stated, between their house in the village and the house towards which they were proceeding on that night, there are two more houses both belonging to CW10 - Vardhamangouda. However, the place of incident was in front of that house of CW10 - Vardhaangouda, where he was residing. It is keeping this point as one of the points of his argument, the learned counsel for the accused contended, according to PW2, there were no other houses between their main house and the house towards which Crl.A.No.100108/2014 19 they were proceeding, but according to PW3 and PW5, there were two houses of CW10 - Vardhamangouda in between. As such, their evidence is not worth believing. It cannot be lost sight of the statement made by PW2 himself in his evidence that, after stating that there is no other house in between, in the very next sentence, he has stated that the incident has taken place while they were on their way and in front of the house of CW10 - Vardhamangouda. This undisputed statement of PW2 himself to show that between the main house and other house (towards which they were proceeding in the night) in the village, there is a house of CW10 -
Vardhamangouda. It is this aspect which is further clarified in the cross-examination of PW3 and PW5. As such, the evidence of PW2 with that of PW3 and PW5 cannot be considered as a contradiction.
15. Many suggestions were made in the cross- examination of PW2, PW3 and PW5 from the accused side Crl.A.No.100108/2014 20 denying the occurrence of the alleged incident, which these witnesses did not admit as true. The suggestions made to the effect that these witnesses and the accused belong to two rival fractions and two different political parties, as such, due to political animosity, a false case has been hoisted against the accused, has also not been admitted as true by these witnesses. It was also further suggested to these witnesses that, in the Hanamanthadevara Jatra, there would be large gathering of devotees, who throw dry dates, bananas and coconut towards the chariot, as such, in the said stampede PW2, PW3 and PW5 have sustained injuries, undue advantage of which they were taking by attributing the same as assault committed by the accused against them. These three witnesses not only denied those suggestions in clear terms, but have stated clearly that the jatra, which would commence at 4.30 pm would come to an end within half an hour and one hour since the chariot will be pulled with the help of rope only at the distance of about 200 feet in Crl.A.No.100108/2014 21 the main road and that the devotees would disburse immediately after the cart festival and that the incident has taken place in the night at about 9.45 pm, when there were no other people.
16. In this way, though several attempts were made in the cross-examination of PW2, PW3 and PW5, for dismantling their evidence given in examination-in-chief, but the accused could not succeed in the said attempt. As such, the evidence of these three injured witnesses remains unshaken and trustworthy.
17. In the judgment relied upon by the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor i.e., Baleshwar Mahto and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2007) 3 SCC 152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the analysis of the evidence of injured witness and its reliability, after relying upon its previous judgments in the case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 and in the case of Jarnail Crl.A.No.100108/2014 22 Singh Vs. State of Panjab reported in (2009) 9 SCC 719 and various other judgments, reiterated that, testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. It is as a consequence of fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and because the injured witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate the third party in the commission of offence. With this, it observed that, thus deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
18. After the evidence of injured witnesses, the next stage of witnesses who have supported the case of prosecution are PW1 - Siddappa Doddamani, PW4 - Shivaraddi L. Bandiwad PW12 - Devareddy and PW13 - Manjureddy.
Crl.A.No.100108/201423
19. PW1 (CW17) - Siddappa Doddamani in his evidence has stated that, on the date of incident at 9.30 pm, while he was near Hanumantadevar temple at their village, he saw the accused armed with iron rods and clubs proceeding towards the house of CW1, CW6 and CW7. Out of curiosity he also followed them. He has further stated that, at that time CW1, CW6 and CW7 were coming from opposite direction and near the house of CW10 - Vardhamanagouda, accused restrained CW1, CW6 and CW7 and abused them and stating that the accused were picking up quarrel pertaining to their land and also putting up of the wall at their house, assaulted CW1, CW6 and CW7. This witness has also given a detailed account of which accused assaulted which of the injured. He has also stated that, after the assault, he rescued CW1, CW6 and CW7. He has also stated that CW8, CW10, CW11, CW13, CW15 and CW18 also rushed there by that time. The entire incident took place in about 15 minutes. The accused left the place by posing threat to Crl.A.No.100108/2014 24 the lives of the assaulted. It is thereafter the relatives of the injured came there and shifted the injured to Navalgund hospital. This witness also stating that the police had recorded his statement, has identified four clubs at M.O.1, two iron rods at M.O.2, as the weapons used by the accused in assaulting the injured.
PW1 was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side, wherein though he admitted that the accused and the injured belong to rival political fractions, but specifically denied that because of the same there was any enmity between them. By stating in his cross-examination that by the time he went to the temple, it was about 9.30 pm and by that time, jatra was over and there was no much gathering, he removed the suspicion that due to jatra there must have been a good gathering of people at the time of incident. Further, he has also stated that only about 30 to 40 persons had gathered at the place of incident on hearing hue and cry.
Crl.A.No.100108/201425
In this way, the evidence of this witness appears to have come in a natural manner with no exaggeration. This is also for the reason that as a natural witness, he has also shown in his cross-examination that though he can identify the clubs and iron rods at M.O.1 and M.O.2, as the weapons used in the commission of crime, but he stated that he cannot say which of the accused was armed with which of those weapons.
20. PW4 (CW8) - Shivaraddi L. Bandiwad, in his evidence has shown that he is not only related to the injured, but also a relative of accused Nos.1, 4, 8 and 9. He has shown that all the accused and the injured are residents of his village. Thus, he has made it clear that both the sides were known to him even prior to the incident. Regarding the incident, this witness has stated that he was an eyewitness to the incident occurred at 9.30 pm on the ill-fated day of 29.08.2008. According to this witness, he was in the jatra at that time near Crl.A.No.100108/2014 26 Hanumantadevara temple, which was about 50 feet away from the house of said CW10; on hearing galata on the road in front of the house of the said CW10, he rushed there and saw that all the accused armed with clubs and rods were assaulting CW1, PW2 and PW3. He has given a detailed account as to which accused assaulted which of the injured persons. He also has stated that himself and CW12, CW13, CW14, CW15 and CW18 pacified the accused and sent them back and shifted the injured to Navangund hospital. He also made it clear that at the time of incident, there was street light at that place. He too identified the weapons at M.O.1 and M.O.2.
This witness also was subjected to a detailed cross- examination, wherein he gave more details in an elaborate manner about the existence of a dispute between the accused and the injured with respect to a common wall between the house of one Hanumaraddi Venkaraddi Kurahatti and accused Nos. 1 to 4, 8 and 9. He has also given a detailed account of the dispute between the Crl.A.No.100108/2014 27 accused and the injured with respect to the boundary of their land giving the extent of the land and stating that the lands of accused and the injured were abutting each other. Apart from giving a detailed account of the dispute existing between the parties, he has also stated that all the injured, though have other houses also in the village, but residing in one house, which also was the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5. The suggestion made to him with respect to the alleged existence of political rivalry between the accused and the complainant was denied by this witness, so also the suggestion to the effect that the alleged injury to the injured was due to stampede in jatra on that day but not by the alleged act of the accused.
In this way, though more details were elicited in his cross-examination from the accused side, but his evidence to the effect that he was an eyewitness to the incident could not be weaken or shaken in his cross-examination. Crl.A.No.100108/2014 28
21. PW12 (CW15) - Devaraddi in his evidence has given an account of both the incident said to have taken place on the date 29.08.2008. The first incident is with respect to accused No.2 Devaraddi picking up a quarrel with PW2 - Hemaraddi in the Hanumantadevara temple, in the evening and the second incident is about the alleged incident of accused assaulting PW2, PW3 and PW5 on the same night, while the injured were said to have been going to their another house for sleeping. This witness has given an account of which of the accused was armed with which weapons and also as to which accused assaulted whom. Like PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, he also categorically stated that there were street lights burning at the time of incident.
This witness also was subjected to a detailed cross- examination from the accused side. Though in his cross- examination it has come out that all the injured are his relatives, but it could not be brought in his cross- examination from the accused side that, because of his Crl.A.No.100108/2014 29 relationship with the injured, he has given a false evidence. His detailed cross-examination has elicited more details regarding the incident rather than showing any falsehood in his statement made in his examination- in-chief. As such, his cross-examination is of no much help to the accused.
22. PW13 (CW13) - Manjuraddi, is admittedly another relative of PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW12. He has also stated about the accused No.2 initiating quarrel with PW2 in the Hanumantadevara temple in the village on the evening of 29.08.2008 and abusing him in filthy language. He has stated that the source of the said information was PW2, the victim. He has also given a detailed account about the alleged incident said to have taken place on that night. This witness has stated that, on hearing the sound of quarrel he rushed to the place of the incident, which was very near to his house, where he saw the accused assaulting PW2, PW3 and PW5 with clubs and iron rods. Crl.A.No.100108/2014 30 This witness also has given an account of which of the accused assaulted which of the injured and in what manner.
Interestingly, in his cross-examination, a suggestion was made from the accused side, which reads as below:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 29.08.2008gÀAzÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ zÉêÀgÀ eÁvÁæ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 2£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉêÀÄgÀrØUÉ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå dUÀ¼À DVzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ w½¢vÀÄÛ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
By making the said suggestion, the accused have admitted that on the date of incident in the evening, a quarrel had taken place between the accused No.2 and PW2. He also denied a suggestion that there was any political rivalry between the accused and the injured. He has given a detailed account as to the location of his house, place of incident and the house of the injured in their village, which go to show that all of them are not situated at distant places, but they are in the form of a cluster. As such, hearing some galata(noise) of an Crl.A.No.100108/2014 31 incident and rushing to the said place is not uncommon thing. Though a suggestion was made to this witness that loud speakers would be used in the jatra and songs would be played in it, but the witness made it clear that it would be only during pulling of the chariot and not thereafter. According to this witness also, the incident has taken place after the cart festival coming to an end on that day.
In this way, the cross-examination of this witness also has helped the prosecution in crystallizing its case of proving the alleged incident and the accused assaulting the injured in the said incident.
23. Even though PW11 - Maktumsab Bawasab Nadaf, PW14 - Vardhamangouda Laxmangouda Hiregoudar, PW15 - Sunil Sujatgouda Goudar and PW16 - Yellappa Ballappa Halawar, were also examined by the prosecution projecting them as the eyewitnesses, but none of them have supported the case of the prosecution regarding they witnessing the alleged incident. But merely Crl.A.No.100108/2014 32 because some of the prosecution witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution, by that itself, the case of the prosecution cannot be suspected when in fact its case is supported by the evidence of the injured witness and corroborated by the evidence of other eyewitnesses whose evidence inspires confidence.
24. In this way, the above analysis clearly go to show that, the evidence of none else than the injured eyewitness i.e., PW2, PW3 and PW5 is further corroborated by the evidence of the eyewitnesses, who are PW1, PW4, PW12 and PW13, which go show that on the date 29.08.2008, in the night at about 9.45 pm, in front of the house of CW10 - Vardhamanagouda, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, abused PW2, PW3 and PW5 in filthy language and assaulted them with clubs and iron rods causing them injuries.
25. The next evidence to be considered is the medical evidence to ascertain whether the alleged assault Crl.A.No.100108/2014 33 upon PW2, PW3 and PW5 would result in the injuries which were noticed by the doctor on the person of PW2, PW3 and PW5.
26. PW10 (CW19) - Dr. Vishwanath Kallangadi, in his examination-in-chief has stated that, being the Chief Medical Officer of the General Hospital at Navalgund since the year 2004, he has examined Lingaraddi Kurahatti (PW3) on 29.08.2008 at 10.15 pm, who had come to the hospital with the history of assault. He has stated that, by the medical examination of the injured, he noticed a cut lacerated wound over the center of the head measuring 5x3 inch bone deep and cut lacerated wound over the left hand index finger measuring 3x1/2 cm. He also received an X-ray report from Sushruta Hospital for his perusal at later date and noticed that there was fracture of base of terminal phalyx and distal shaft of intermediate phalyx of index finger. He opined fractured injury was grievous in nature. He has also stated that Crl.A.No.100108/2014 34 after giving first aid he has sent injured to KIMS Hospital at Hubballi. He has identified the wound certificate issued by himself at Ex.P6 and his signature therein at Ex.P6(a).
This witness has also stated that, on that day, he also examined one more injured person by name Hemaraddi (PW2), who had also come to him with the history of assault. His examination revealed that the injured had sustained a head injury over left side center and post aspect of head measuring 3 x ½ cm bone depth and cut lacerated wound on upper lip right side. He referred the said patient to KIMS hospital, then to Sushruta Hospital. The witness has also stated that CT brain and the reports placed before him specifically shown the fracture to anterior body wall of left external auditory canal. He has opined the injury as grievous in nature.
The very same witness in his evidence has also stated on the same date at 10.45 pm, he examined Sanjeevraddi(PW5), who had also come to him with the history of assault. In his examination he (doctor) noticed Crl.A.No.100108/2014 35 a cut lacerated wound and swelling over right shoulder. He has also identified the wound certificate at Ex.P8 said to have been issued by him in that regard.
This doctor after looking at M.O.1 and M.O.2 opined that the injury found on the injured are possible to be caused when the person is assaulted with those weapons. His cross-examination could not dilute his statement made in his examination-in-chief. Rather in his cross- examination, he has justified his statement as to why he referred the injured for higher treatment to KIMS Hospital by stating that, he felt that the injured required higher medical treatment and that orthopaedicians were not available in his hospital.
The details of the assault made upon them on the particular part of their person as stated by PW2, PW3 and PW5 corroborates with the place of the injury found on their person by this doctor (PW10).
Crl.A.No.100108/201436
27. PW19 - Dr. Mithun, a specialist doctor at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, in his evidence has stated that on the date 30.08.2008, as a part time consultant at Sushruta Multi Specialty Hospital, he has examined PW2
- Hemaraddi Kurahatti. His evidence regarding the nature of injuries in the form of cut lacerated wound found on the head and skull of the injured does not deviate from preliminary observation made by PW10. Even PW19 also has stated that those injuries found on PW2 are possible to be caused when a person is assaulted with club and iron rod. He has further stated that, if the assault is upon the head region and with some force, there was possibility of the death of the injured.
In his cross-examination this witness specifically denied a suggestion that those injuries are possible to be occurred by the fall of injured. The witness also given the reason that a single fall of the injured would not result in multiple injuries which he found on the person of PW2. Crl.A.No.100108/2014 37
28. In this way, both the doctors i.e., PW10 and PW19 have clearly ruled out the suggestion made from the accused side that the injury found on the person of injured are also possible to occur due to the fall of injured on the ground. This demonstrates that the defence taken from the accused side in the form of suggestions made to all the material witnesses including the injured that the injuries sustained by the injured was due to their fall in the alleged stampede at jatra is untenable. On the other hand, the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of both the injured as well the eyewitnesses, as to the cause for the injuries is assault with clubs, iron rods.
29. The evidence of Investigating Officer - PW17 and the charge sheet filing Investigating Officer - PW18 are fully supported by the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW10, PW12, PW13 and PW19. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Crl.A.No.100108/2014 38 Investigating Officer had filed a false charge sheet against the accused also cannot be accepted.
30. The argument of the learned Addl. SPP that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses thus requires to be given due weightage.
31. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the motive has not been proved was also one of the reason given by the Court below in passing a judgment of acquittal, whereas, as observed above, all the supporting witnesses to the prosecution and more particularly PW1 to PW5 in their evidence have clearly stated that the motive for the alleged crime was the long existing dispute between the accused and the injured with respect to construction of bifurcating wall between their houses and a dispute with respect to boundary of agricultural land. Though it is observed by the Court below that except mentioning the dispute was with respect to wall and boundary of the land, no further details were Crl.A.No.100108/2014 39 given, but the Court below has lost sight of the evidence of PW3, who has given a detailed account of both the disputes with respect to the wall and boundary of the land. He has stated that, land dispute was with respect to a land what they popularly call as "HgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ºÉÆ®" (land in front of the village). As has come out in his evidence as well as the evidence of PW4, there were several pieces of land owned by injured and the accused. According to PW3, the dispute of boundary of the land was with respect to said "HgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ºÉÆ®".
PW4 in his evidence, apart from stating that their land of 14 acres and the land of the accused Nos.1 to 4, 8 and 9 to an extent of 5 acres, are abutting each other, has given a detailed account as to the dispute existing between the parties with respect to the wall. He has clearly stated that the disputed wall was a common wall existing between the house of Hanumaraddi Kurahatti and the house of accused Nos.1 to 4, 8 and 9. The said Hanumaraddi died about 4 years prior to the evidence of Crl.A.No.100108/2014 40 these witnesses (i.e., on 09.01.2012). This witness was residing in that house for about 10 years previously. But now the said house is being used for tethering cattle. They had renovated the said house, but the dispute relating to wall started 10-15 years back. This witness as well as PW1 and the injured, though stated that no civil or criminal litigations were instituted with respect to the wall and boundary disputes between the parties, but by that itself, the existence of the dispute cannot be disbelieved.
The Court below committed an error here in coming to a conclusion that, in the absence of any litigation, it cannot be believed that there exists any dispute with respect to wall and the land. In a small village set up that too among the relatives, it cannot be expected that the parties shall or must rush to the Court merely because a dispute has arisen between them. It is not uncommon in India, the adjoining land owners in rural set up live with the dispute with respect to boundary to their lands or houses for generation without going to the Court. At the Crl.A.No.100108/2014 41 same time, it also cannot be ruled out the parties to the dispute rushing to the Court at the earliest. As such, when considered in the light of the circumstance of this case, where the entire village, more particularly, the families of the accused and the injured being relatives and living in a small village set up, and seeking advice of the elders in the village for their differences, it cannot be expected that they would rush to the Court at the earliest point of time after the eruption of dispute between them. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that motive is not proved cannot be accepted.
32. Another reasoning given by the Court below for acquittal of the accused was that the overt act against accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 9 have been stated, but no such overt act was attributed with respect to other accused. In that regard, it appears that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence of one of the injured witnesses i.e., PW2, who in his evidence apart from Crl.A.No.100108/2014 42 specifically mentioning the overt acts of accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, out of 11 accused, has clearly stated that the other accused were dragging these injured to assist the accused who were armed with weapons to assault them. In this way, the said witness has attributed the overt act against other accused. Similarly, PW3 also has alleged specific overt acts as against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 with the specific acts committed by them with particular weapons like club or iron rod. One more injured PW5 has given a detailed account of which of the accused assaulted whom and in what manner. He has stated accused Nos. 1, 4 and 7 assaulted him with clubs on his shoulder, left forearm and back. Accused No.3 assaulted PW3 with iron rod, accused Nos.2 and 9 assaulted with club and iron rod respectively to PW2.
In this way, each of the injured have attributed overt act against those accused, who assaulted them with particular weapons like clubs and iron rods. Thus, in a group of 11 assailant persons, assaulted cannot be Crl.A.No.100108/2014 43 expected to specifically count as to how many blows each of the accused has given upon him and in what manner. However, the evidence of all the three injured i.e., PW2, PW3 and PW5 have shown uniformity in attributing overt acts against the accused. Moreover, as observed above PW3 has made it clear in his evidence that the rest of the accused were dragging these injured to assist the accused with weapons to assault them. As such, in a mob attack, as in the present circumstance, it cannot be expected that every injured should watch and record the overt act of each of the accused specifically and individually. As such, the said reasoning of the Court below regarding the absence of specific overt act against one or two accused cannot be considered as a sound reasoning.
33. The third reasoning given by the Court below for acquittal is the alleged suspicion in the recovery of weapons, only because panchas to the seizure panchanama having turned hostile to the prosecution. No Crl.A.No.100108/2014 44 doubt, the panchas to the recovery panchanama have turned hostile, but the evidence of the Investigating Officer about he conducting recovery panchanama and seizing the weapons at M.O.1 and M.O.2 could not be shaken in the cross-examination of the said witness. Further, as already observed above, the injured have specifically identified the weapons so also other eyewitnesses. Thus, the said reasoning given by the Court below for acquittal does not appear to be a sound reasoning.
34. The alleged political rivalry between the parties is one more reasoning for the acquittal of accused by the Court below. No doubt, two witnesses, as observed above, have admitted that the injured and the accused were followers of two different political parties in the village, but it is nobody's case that those two political parties i.e., Congress and JDS are rival political parties. Though political rivalry was attributed, as a suggestion to those witnesses, but none of the witnesses have admitted about Crl.A.No.100108/2014 45 the existence of any political rivalry between the accused and the injured. As such, merely because two groups in an incident belong to two different political parties, by that itself it cannot be inferred that hoisting of the criminal case is for political reason and bereft of any merit in it.
35. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused as well the reasoning of the Court below was also about the suspicion in the Investigating Officer collecting the sample blood stained mud from the spot of the incident. No doubt in the evidence of material witness, it has come out that after the incident in the night, there was a drizzling (rain) in the village. But it is nobody's case that there was such a heavy rain resulting in washing away of blood stains said to have marked its presence on the earth. It is nobody's case that at the time of incident there was heavy rain. But the evidence is that, after the incident in the night there was drizzling in the village. If that is so, by that time there is all the possibilities of the Crl.A.No.100108/2014 46 blood fallen on the earth got solidified so that it cannot be easily washed away by some drizzling. Furthermore, in the light of the ocular evidence as well as the injured witnesses evidence, a mere doubt regarding collection of blood stained mud from the spot would in no way take away the trustworthiness in the evidence of the eyewitnesses including the injured about the incident and the role of the accused in it.
36. It was also the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the alleged place of incident being a narrow lane, it was impossible for a mob of 11 persons in the form of accused and three injured having any altercations there, which has made other people to gather. In that regard, a reading of the evidence of eyewitnesses as well the injured, no doubt go to show that the alleged place of incident was not a wide road, but a small road. According to that, it was about 10-12 feet wide, with street lights. Even if it is taken that the said lane was only 5 feet Crl.A.No.100108/2014 47 width, by that itself it cannot be taken, in such a passage/lane, no crime as alleged could happen, for a group of villagers who had determined to attack the other group (injured herein) and who have come to the place duly determined, as such armed with clubs and iron rods to restrain other fractions (injured) from proceeding further and assaulting them. The assault by two fractions in the village is not expected to be taken in an open field inviting spectators to the same. As such, in a village set up, where passage between the houses in the form of lane or road would not be bit wide, one cannot expect the offence of mob attack to be taken in a wide open place. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the spot of the offence is also not acceptable.
37. Lastly, it was also the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the act of the injured in not running away from the place after seeing the mob Crl.A.No.100108/2014 48 approaching them leads to suspicion regarding the occurrence of the incident. No doubt, the said kind of situation may be expected in a locality where the attackers would be strangers and where previous enmity between the two groups of people would not be in existence. However, in a small village set up, merely because they have some dispute with other group, would not be in a position to move away from them, that too in the present case the accused and the injured were admittedly a known persons to each other. As such, when they had dispute between them and just a couple of hours prior to the incident, one of the injured was abused by one of the accused at the temple, it is not uncommon that one group, who are the accused in this case, deciding to continue their act further and to decide to attack and assault the other group. Simultaneously, the other group ignoring the accused or without anticipating any such overt act, as a routine proceeding to their other house after dinner and also deciding to face the consequence even after they Crl.A.No.100108/2014 49 seeing the mob approaching them on the way. Thus, the behavior or the reaction of the injured who were smaller in number compared to the accused at the time of the incident also cannot be taken as uncommon.
38. For these reasons, the only conclusion that has to be drawn is that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date 29.08.2008, in Ibrahimpur village at about 9.40 pm, the accused formed an unlawful assembly with an intention to assault PW2, PW3 and PW5 and in prosecution of their common object and armed with weapons like clubs and iron rods, have wrongfully restrained PW2, PW3 and PW5 from proceeding further, abused them in filthy language so as to provoke them to cause beach of public peace and assaulted them causing injuries upon them and more particularly grievous injuries to PW2 and PW3, thus, committed the offence punishable under Sections 148, 341, 504 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC. However, though it is the case of Crl.A.No.100108/2014 50 the prosecution that the accused intended to cause the death of the injured, as such, they have also committed the offence punishable under Section 307 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC, the fact to be noticed here is, when the accused were 11 in number and armed with weapons like clubs and iron rods, it was not impossible for them to kill any of the injured had they really decided and determined to do so. Though the accused No.2 had threatened PW2 in the temple on that evening that they would eradicate PW2 and his people, but that itself cannot be considered as their determination to do so. Similarly, abusive words used by the accused at the time of incident that they would take away the injured cannot be considered as the determination of the accused to kill the injured. At the best, they would have intended to teach a lesson to the injured by manhandling them including assaulting them. As such, the accused who are 11 in number have spared injured i.e., PW2, PW3 and PW5 of their lives, but only caused grievous injuries to PW2 and PW3 and simple Crl.A.No.100108/2014 51 injuries to PW5, though some of the injuries being caused on the vital parts of the body i.e, head. Thus, the act of the accused in assaulting and causing grievous injuries upon PW2 and PW3 by using weapons like clubs and iron rods though has fallen short of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, but definitely would fall within Section 326 of the IPC.
39. Accordingly, the order of acquittal of all the accused from all the alleged offences passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside and the prosecution is required to have proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 504, 326 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC, but failed to prove the guilt under Section 307 of the IPC.
40. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:
Crl.A.No.100108/201452
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment in S.C.No.1/2011 dated 18.01.2014 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, acquitting the accused/respondents herein for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 504 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC is set aside. The respondents/accused No.1 - Bannareddy S/o.
Hanumareddy Kurahatti, accused No.2 - Dhirmareddy S/o. Devareddy Kurahatti, accused No.3 - Hanamareddy Devareddy Kurahatti, accused No.4 - Ramreddy Hanamareddy Kurahatti, accused No.5 - Shiddappa Mahadevappa Venkannavar, accused No.6 - Yellappa Somappa Halakatti, accused No.7 - Ramappa Bhimappa @ Bhimareddy Kadadi, accused No.8 - Venkareddy Hanamareddy Kurahatti, accused No.9 - Mallareddy Hanamareddy Kurahatti, accused No.10 - Shivappa Laxmappa Kittali, accused No.11 - Mahadevappa Crl.A.No.100108/2014 53 Dhariyappa Venkannavar, are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 341, 504, 326 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC. The bail bonds of all the accused stand cancelled.
(For hearing on sentence) Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
Crl.A.No.100108/2014
54
SSJ & DR.HBPSJ: Crl.A.No.100108/2014
04.12.2017
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the accused regarding sentence.
2. Learned counsel for the accused in his submission referred to two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of GEORGE PON PAUL VS. KANAGALET AND OTHERS reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6701 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found it appropriate to restrict the period of sentence to the period already undergone i.e., confinement till the rising of the Court.
In SURENDRA NATH MOHANTY AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ORISSA reported in 1999 CRL.L.J 3496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing that the proven guilt was punishable under Section 326 which was not compoundable but considering the fact that there was a lapse of 10 years from the date of incident and that the Crl.A.No.100108/2014 55 parties had already settled their dispute out the Court, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to a period of three months rigorous imprisonment already undergone.
Learned counsel for the accused also relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of RAMKRISHNA ALIAS SANJU SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.686/2007 dated 01.12.2017 wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court after considering that the incident had taken place in the year 1993 and 24 years had already been passed and that compromise had taken place between the parties, reduced the sentence of five years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC to the period already undergone by appellant No.1/accused. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel submitted that this Court be taken a lenient view in the aspect of sentence in the light of the above judgments.
Crl.A.No.100108/201456
The learned counsel for the accused / respondents further submitted that the accused are the family holders having responsibility to maintain their wife, children and parents. As such, a lenient view be taken.
3. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor in his argument submitted that the offence proved against the accused are heinous in nature and that the accused are required to be punished with maximum sentence awarded for the respective offences. He further submitted that, if the accused are given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, there is life threat to the injured who are required to continue to live in the same village and as neighbors of the accused in future also.
The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in his submission relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in SUMER SINGH VS. SURAJBHAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in [(2014) 3 SCC (CRL) 184] and Crl.A.No.100108/2014 57 brought to our attention paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment which are reproduced here below.
"36. Having discussed about the discretion, presently we shall advert to the duty of the court in the exercise of power while imposing sentence for an offence. It is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. The paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the court's accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for the rule of law. It must evince the rationalised judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity. But, if in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotioned. Law cannot tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. The old saying "the law can hunt one's past" cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. True it is, it has its own room, but, in all circumstances, it cannot be allowed to occupy the whole accommodation. The victim, in this case, still cries for Crl.A.No.100108/2014 58 justice. We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the Code would be a justified answer in law. Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and , eventually, to the cry of the society. Therefore, striking the balance we are disposed to think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if the respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from the fine that has been imposed by the learned trial Judge.
37. Before parting with the case we are obliged, nay, painfully constrained to state that it has come to the notice of this Court in certain heinous crimes or crimes committed in a brutal manner the High Courts in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction have imposed extremely lenient sentences which shock the conscience. It should not be so. It should be borne in mind what Cierro had said centuries age:
"It can truely be said that the Magistrate is a ppeaking law, and the law a silent Magistrate."
4. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence imposed shall be neither exorbitant nor only for the name sake. It must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence proved. Considering the circumstance of the case, we Crl.A.No.100108/2014 59 don't find that accused/convicts deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act.
We have applied our mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the judgments relied upon by both side in support of their submission regarding the sentence. We have also considered the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that all the accused are family holders and agriculturists having their responsibility of maintaining their family.
As already observed above, we have given our thought to the fact that both the accused and the victims are residing in the same village and that in case of taking any lenient view and setting off the accused forthwith at the earliest point of time may disturb further peace in the village and aggravate the rivalry between the victim and the accused. As such, as observed by us, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumer Singh (supra), the Court should not take any extremely lenient view in imposing the Crl.A.No.100108/2014 60 sentence and it is the duty of the Court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the Society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. Keeping all these aspects in mind, we proceed to pronounce the following order on sentence.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
5. For the offence punishable under Section 148 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC, each of the accused/respondents herein are sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of 18 months and shall pay a fine of `3,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
6. For the offence punishable under Section 341 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC, each of the accused shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days and shall pay a fine of `200/-, in default of payment Crl.A.No.100108/2014 61 of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
7. For the offence punishable under Section 504 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC, each of the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year and shall pay a fine of `1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days.
8. For the offence punishable under Section 326 R/w. Section 149 of the IPC, each of the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Four years and shall pay a fine of `6,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
9. Out of the fine amount paid by the accused, if any, a sum of `20,000/- each shall be paid to PW2 - Hemaraddi K. Kurahatti, PW3 - Lingaraddi D. Kurahatti and a sum of `10,000/- shall be paid to PW5 - Crl.A.No.100108/2014 62 Sanjeevraddi, as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The accused/respondents are entitled for set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
All sentences to run concurrently.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-