Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Tarikere Police ... vs Shiva @ Shivakumar on 21 February, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.322 OF 2009
Between:
State of Karnataka
By Tarikere Police Station ... Appellant
(By Sri.B.Visweswaraiah, HCGP)
And:
1. Shiva @ Shivakumar
Son of Marappa Naidu
20 years
2. Shashi @ Shashikumar
Son of Marappa Naidu
25 years
3. R.Prabhu
Son of G.Ramu
21 years
All are residents of
M.C.Halli, Tarikere Taluk
Chickmagalur Dist. ...Respondents
(By Sri.S.B.Totad, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)
and (3) Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to file an appeal
2
against judgment and order of acquittal dated
10.12.2008 passed by the Additional District and
Special Judge, Chikmagalur in Special Case
No.35/2006 - acquitting the respondent/accused for
offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, read with Section 34
IPC.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The respondents (hereinafter referred to as accused 1 to 3) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Trial Judge has acquitted the accused. Therefore, State is before this Court.
2. I have heard learned Government Advocate for State and learned counsel for accused.
3. The allegations made against accused are as follows:
The accused are residents of M.C.Halli, so also injured - PW1. The accused are non-members of 3 Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe. PW1 belongs to Adi Karnataka caste. PW1 was working as a tractor driver with accused No.3 - Prabhu. On 6.3.2006 at 6.00 p.m., PW1 came to house of accused No.3 and demanded him to pay his wages. At that time, accused 1 and 2 abused PW1 by taking out the name of his caste and assaulted with their footwear. Accused 1 to 3 assaulted him and also held out threats to his life.
4. As per evidence of PW1, incident of assault is said to have taken place at 6.00 p.m. on 6.3.2006 in M.C.Halli, which is at a distance of 10 kms. from Tarikere Police Station. The first information was lodged by PW1 at 10.00 p.m. on 8.3.2006. PW1 has not offered explanation for delay in lodging first information. On the other hand, PW1 has deposed that during night of 6.3.2006, when he was treated in Tarikere Government Hospital, police came and recorded his statement. PW1 has admitted that senior uncle of accused No.3, namely Marappa Naidu had lodged first 4 information against PW1 alleging that he had abused him and assaulted him. The accused have produced copies of first information and wound certificate relating to injuries suffered by Marappa Naidu.
5. In the first information it is stated that accused No.3 abused PW1 by taking out name of his case and instigated accused No.1 to assault him. PW1 has deposed that accused had dumped him in a gutter and kicked, trampled him and he became unconscious. The wound certificate and evidence of PW6 - Dr.Prasannakumar would reveal that PW1 had suffered two contusions and a lacerated injury. If accused 1 to 3 had dumped PW1 in a gutter, kicked and trampled him, he would have suffered multiple injuries. Therefore, evidence of PW1 does not find corroboration from medical evidence.
6. PW2 - Lakshmamma (wife of PW1) had reached the place of incident after the alleged assault. PW2 has 5 deposed that when she reached place of incident, accused had assaulted PW1 and they had dumped him in a gutter. As already stated, evidence of PW1 that accused had assaulted him and dumped him in a gutter and trampled him, does not find corroboration from medical evidence. Therefore, evidence of PW2 a post occurrence witness, cannot be accepted. PW3 - Ramanna has not supported case of prosecution. PW4
- Nanjunda is also a post occurrence witness. He had reached the place of incident after PW1 had fallen down. The evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 9 relates to investigation of case.
7. On reappreciaton of evidence, I find that there was pre existing enmity between accused and PW1. The senior uncle of accused had also lodged first information against PW1. The evidence of PW1 that he was assaulted by accused, he was trampled, kicked and dumped into a gutter, does not find corroboration from medical evidence. The evidence of PW1 that accused 6 abused him by taking out name of his caste is not consistent and credible. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB