Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Gowribidanur (R) ... vs Ramareddy S/O Murukala Hanumanthappa on 2 June, 2011
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
5):).
INTHEIHGHCQURTOFKAmwuAKAAT8g§éAfixfi§f,
DATED THIS THE 02% E£g§':{}F' 3:::<s::;;- _ u
PRESENQ 4' u 4_ ' W
THE HCDNBLE 3
THErfixvBLEAfi{3UsTKfi§?gd:sUR1A§H%RA0
Cr}.A.NG.,_ 24§Ov/ *
BETWEEN:
State of Karna'£a'1a<;éi_' --
By Gowribi.d.anu1%';f{R§ pO:i;i'C\:.f:'H :1' V " V Appefiant
{By Sri.N
1.Ram_arEddy_ V V .
S/0 M.;1fukai3._ H'arn,1fi';ar: ihappa.
2. Yeddu12£i%:=%dVtly_'V--. A _ V /"G Ramaiirzgareddy, 56 Years.
H . B'. Ffiarézgfanareddy ' , <:._J2a3%aré::nareddy, 66 Years. :1; ' Af1af1:i?::e£:i?:5Ly 0 E?Ea_::g.appa, 41 Years, AH aré.I§.}'0 Dirmehuraasenahafli. V. C'£;'5f'I'ibi(i3H1.,R' Taluk £{g>Ia':* District Resgendenis {E3}; Sri.R.'vKShi:IanaVn<ia Redd}; for S:*§J's?I.R4Nanj::nda Gcswda V 33:5} £§s$0c§§ir:$) Ix) This appeal is flied umiéir seation Cr.P.C praying to grant leave: to 13316 n the judgment dated 08.08.2035 pg;;~;s:~;e%c:_ Sessions Judge, FTC, Chickbaliétggfiir acquitting the resp0nde:fi~sV_/acéused_V1~foi*.. ""Qf§Eén<:€s"V punishable under sections fifection 34 This appeal <:€)::1ing. fb1f':..hea.ri:1g this day, V.S.Appa Rae, ;.}_'., de1ix,=é3I}e:d the:.,fofl{::Wiiig:'i his L;fii§1g§_r,:§SeCti0n 3'78 (1) and (.3) of judgment of acquittal passed 'bgqthf: Sessions. Judge, Fast Track CQ1;ii'f, Chikfifiéibaiiapura dated 08. O8. 2005 in
- _ _30_/A2oo@'.~~ ---------- « "
A' facts Leading to this appeal are as f0i'i«s:»v»-'£*?s':'~' -.
Cm 12.021999, at abcut 9110 am, the accused éyith a comman integltisn have trespassed 335% X , Q" »,
-/*4g"' /'W n 3 voluntarily eazxsecl hurt to the complainant Reeidappa with an iron rod and kicked him and eaused:'f"--ei':,eh injuries with an ir1tem:i<>11 or knowledge tha£'euel1"e§':*: {facet would caused death of C0mp1a.inaI:='t .Vfh'e:fel;:«y committed offences punishable; Ulifider :':3eé:;:i,e:;;~:
324, 3027 r/W 34 l.P.C.
3. The learned hearing the learned «:A: c>unselV_ the public proseeutorfl '.:_4i;:l;ivelVef'--\'geeti0ns 447, 324 and 307 the accused. The accused p1é;a5ee£:ot and denied the offences.
4. -tel home the guilt of accused for i:h.e_'3?afQfeea1d Aéffezfxees, the prosecution has examined marked E)xs.Pl to P5 and material 0'bjeCts_ 1"}_'s:.l "(Q 3. On eensidering the evidence ef prese'evuAi:ien witnesses and documents relied on by the preeeeutienl the learned trial judge found {he aeeused 559?: guilty ef efferzees fer which they are ehegrged glad ;/ Hunassenahaih Village originally belongs to the«jfath_e:éV'of eempiainant and part of the property h Construction ef seheei bL1i1ding._ The ae::'{;ee'd'.'§n"i:>r{;1er=-to'V' ~ 2 protect the boundary of the seheet'eenipetafiti,"tfi.efi:;t0 erect stones around thet-.pr0fie;"t'y va1t':ti'AVVe¥W-hen; complainant resisted the the offence took piece. Thg not filed any documentary evidenee property given to the schecét enjoyment. EXP4 »- plan that the property is Dodda Gangaiah who in fact' the school for the purpose of conAstrtA1ctie11..,vQfa"s<:h0e1 building. In the absence of any . exfidtteri-€:'e te>«'_s}10v}hthat the eemplamant is the owner of eentention of the preseeution that the as::.§:__t1se.e'i~ tteepassed into the property to Commit the Aeffer1E;e__é§ eanhet be heiievede Thereferee the aecueeel '.eete rightiy found net guiitjg of effenees puniehabte tilnéei" Seetien 38? $511? 3% LPJC. by the trial eeurt. \ V, ».,».;V e 913"' z ¢»// C3
8. In so far as, charges under Sectioiis.jf32Z1~ iarijd V' 38'? r/W. Section :34 of {PC is c{:ri'éei*n§fCi'..& it: 9 ihé prosecution that all the (1 PW~1 and causgd injuries; .Th.¢ evi%:i€n<:é:_ as P%?§?'4'EVvVpf0v€S'V i that accused No.1 Cf£1uS€(Z1.A,i~f1j_I:1fiE'f"B.,_'Oi'1 his-.h§:::id with a crowbar, accused N20-.2.2314'-3SE£§£§1i'i(é'«i1;"}'1iif3_GI} his private part and kicked him with club on his kieft ééééulted him on his ac: . " ' T hé7.?'vVQV1j511dvgfiériificgizte EXP-3 shows that the Complainant 1*r3f<§'s:fVg::i'--. j"]xTij'1fi;'I"i€S on his head and on his private pa.fli*'t,_i The fi1€V'C'iA'i..(Z'8.1 evidence is silent about {he Qt} théfieii; shoulder and on the back of Li :3<:>ii3pI'a.i:_19iafi*::V he medicai evidence further revéais that 't'hé"iiCofi1:ji;aihant was admitted in the Gavermnent Ho:$p.itfl2d. éihd {oak treatment for 8 days from 12.2. i§9§ ":E{)VV"i?f"0e2r")£g9gg whéirairi W222 has stated thai pm: was '7:i'0"§"iaci:::ii:i:e& in {he h{}Sp§i£>3d £132" 8 days arié 116 has not "V"'3£;ai<;&i': §:"€§£.fI}€§'fE,. ?i7xf~i. has EECYE siaied 'aha? he was in i'\ ,,.£12.,~»-¥*:_/-~ .«"/ NJ the hospital as an inpatient for 8 days. PW-l, he received bleeding injury on the prosecution has not seized {he:'ble'ecl. s{.ai::;eel"'elr>i:h--el:3 Cf PWZE. Admittedly, PWs.2 £0 4: are :"e--leeel},}":elafle<l complainant. According ._~ ' one"
Nanjappa was also pgeseat"~af_:--*:h'e.__t;i11leA'ef. eecurrence who is an independerfi proseeutien has failed to exagtiflrle' lV"llfi+l32<.P~2 mahazer shows that" ljfjolleellleanie to the scene of 0ee_m*.re_:i'e.e"'al*;~;§l,se.ilZeel'Ath«e::,we»ap0ns. But this part: of the ex;ide1":ee""a:aV-.» by the eyewitnesses. Thus, :_leViv;:le11e:<:'eH<)'§" and the witnesses is :1<))'._§ eenslsterlte anti corroborative in all material paftilei:{1:areA~.and in View of the medical evidence; the 1 ii:j~11ifieé:'fQ"LfirjedV.en the person of PW~l is aleo not proved ..2'(}._. On :'e--app;<'e<:iai;i0n of evidence, we find no felasgorzs fie take a different View to base convietien "'ag'aihst aeeeaeefi or: the evidence gredueeel by the 3 E: L 6 _.» V' W» prosecution. Therefore, there is no infirmity the judginent 0f the trial Ceurt in aequitting the ac<:£1e{'ee1 f'..A4 1}. Therefore, the appeal is . ..
judgment ef trial Ceurt is e0nfif:j:1e;f,,.'eAA I NP/r1as'"~ M