Karnataka High Court
State B Y Koramangala Ps vs N S Yelumalai on 22 September, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATEB THIS THE 221% DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K:sREEmA~iAR"jR_Ao:: 4- _ it
AND 4 V
THE HONBLE MR. .J'U§"I'ECAF3I;3'.fV. p13s'f'<;g;
CRLA. NO. zoos»
BE:rwEEN:- it it
State by Koifamangaia P73: .3
Bazigalorefl '
(Ey%_sr1'=o:'3':1gx(aa;--sirigi;;.:S5iéV.fi>.}
AND:-- . _ 3 A
N.S.'=Yeh,1ma--Eai; .. it 3
_31yea1=s,' ~
_ g: S /o Solai, igasturinagar,
if _ "~E{:haganahai1i-,------Bar1galore.
...Respor1der1t
Girish and Associates, Advs.,)
, "._Fhi.s Cr1.A. is filed U/s.378[1} & (3) Cr.P.C. by the
"State P'.Pf praying that this Court may be pleased to grant
{"~}teaV'e._ to file an appeal against the Judgment dated
_ 3 :£8~..10.2004 passed by Add}. Dist. And Sessions Judge, F'DC-
111, in S.C.No.485/2002 acquitting the respondent/accused
__No.1 for the offence P/U/Ss. 341,323 632; 30'? r/W Sec. 34 of
IPC.
/?
This appeal coming for hearing this day,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Vi dated 18-10-2004 passed in s.c.N:q.4:3'5;'2002 Track, (Sessions) Judge~HI, Bangalore 'Cid/. . _ A
2. It is the case hr-ogsectitiondivyvthat on 24--3~2002 at about colony, Ring Road, Bangaloresince the daughter of brother of along with other accused,.r,vith:'ahcioirgmonlg 'intent'ion';t0 commit his murder restrained in a direction and thereafter with an intention theprivate part of C.W.1 voluntarily assa],1§l:tedi'C.W. byhands and thereafter cut the private part of help of blade and caused severe bleeding irijué"hi.e.s intention or knowledge and under such by _ circufnstancesll that if by that Act he would have caused the of"C.W.l., he would have been guilty of murder the accused is alleged to have committed offences V' // punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 307 read'___with Section 34 IPC.
3. initially the case is registered ~ persons. Trial took place against the,_accused'4'respondentv,V since A-2 to A-5 are absconding. pifosevcudtiori order prove the case has eXamined'«--..l§f.W. P.W:."if1.i'v«and..3 got marked Exs.P.1 to 13.12 and pI"(')':Ci'L1:C'(-:€7.i_' land} 2. The defence of the accusedvwais one of-d.e*nial. After hearing the prosecution and theydefence,--.tlie 'Sessions Judge was pleased uofthe offences alleged against, him .0 0 Eitate 'hdaspfilfled appeal. I the. complainant. He has stated before the 'Court thatfhe has come from Tamil Nadu 5 years = yvdatehof the «incident and was staying in the house of his si_stcr'~in'Eoopanahalli. He is a mason. The accused are also Tamil Nadu and they are also residing in Bangalore. .0 He has stated that he knows the accused from if 2' ..chiidnhoo'd. At the time of the incident he was working under 'Kannan Maistry of Kodinehalli gate. On 24-3-2002 at '.
/»"
about 8 p.m. accused No.1, A2 to A4 assembled at Doopanahalli bridge. All the accused took him sister's house to go to Koramangala. A-1 arranged.liduorfanid. . all of them consumed liquor in the 'park near At about 9 p.m. they proceeded t'oWa:rds:' walk. When they reached tei.21:ch.er's colony' nes'r'.,ym_g road. accused took him to vacant them with hands and made him ti.vo.a/lébsbcondling accused by name Manikantha his legs and accused his llfi£ll%ldlsW§ii§\_~ui%1CC1J.S€d by name Suresh (underwear). At that time, was present before the Court 'socket and cut his private parts {Penis} 5-6 times and eased bleeding injuries. His testicles ' "*--were. about 'to comellout due to such grievous injuries. There "a near the place of the incident and hence, he eoluldv.seei-_.and identify all the accused. He enquired from lfithe v'illa.gers about the names of other accused "accompanying Accused No.1 Thereafter, he was lying in the sltiiot with bleeding injuries til} 04.30 am. At that time, Madiwala Police came near him since he had worn only T- shirt he was taken to the Police Station. Thereafter.,"'h;e'««.uias admitted to Victoria Hospital for 30 days. r. recorded his statement, which is marked a§s"E3x';?%§.lV'He"hasv further identified the weapon as him at the time of incident as-'llM.Q.l.lHel'has sLtated.._fEha.lt has filed a complaint on atllvladiwalia Police Station. A it Av pp 'A it
5. P.W. Machalliuthln.EPVVQV.l¥l~:l(;§anapathi, PW3 -- Chakravathi turned hostile to the case of: :E3'x?'»"6 Dr. Vasudeva Rao has stated lvthat .a"--s_u'rgeon in Victoria Hospital on 25.03.200V2e._anc1 l'ilas.l4tr:eate'd the injured in the said hospital. _ He stated has suffered the following injuries:--
_V 1; Both testicles exposed. Entire skin cut exposed incised wound penial urethra erected. V 2. v_ .l'i'lncised wound injury 5 cm x 6 cm on mid part of right thigh.
as 3.". Multiple abrasions posterior aspect of external genitalia {penis}.
6 He is of the opinion that if a person is assaulted with a blade. injuries as per Ex.P8 ~ wound certificate could.» be caused.
6. PW'? -- Basavaraj is the PSI at Station. He has stated that on at«'abo_ut '4:;.iO(x5j p.m., he visited PW-4 in Victoria Ho'spital'and":ecordeC}the'*._ statement which is registeredas:C:fime.VNo.3ilV1: the 22 offences U/Ss.323 anci.;a24 Ar-/w["_§sécir34 o'f"'IPC.V§ He has further stated that he PW4, which was brought the same is subjected l*ia:;3___furth.erllstate'd that on 2.4.2002 furtherlstatemeritlif-of Vlthvel'--iir1§11red was recorded by him and also arrested dthevlacculsedillflo.1 on that day. On the basis of thebaforiniatiori 'g-iven by Accused No.1. blade iVl.O.2 used for »th'e..co111rr:issior1 of the offence has been seized and he has further statement of CW4 and 5. The case was""suhsequvently transferred to Koramangala Police station one the point of jurisdiction.
to.
7. PW8 Puttaramegovvda is the PSI of Madlvala police station who has transmitted the FIR to the court in this case. After receipt of the wound certificate he has handed over the investigation to the Investigating Officer P.W9 Puttamadegowda - PS1 of Koramangala Police":stat:ior1v,' P,W9 has conducted further Investigation V' sheet against the accused. ..
8. PW10 - Ashok kumar hasAt'urned toj case of the prosecution. PWll%E1hl'vanna 'ls_l_tl1e.V-=pefir7son who has recorded the statement of th"e..hosp1taI. ts from the evidence of these witnesses.eltthatdtheglearned Sessions judge has held -»the.:§ro_:s'ec.ution has not proved the case against the"resp,ondent:_ andhence acquitted the accused. i*{eard"«SVr'1"'«V(} Bhavani Singh, learned S.P.P. for "_:Sri. M Girish learned counsel for the respolndenntll at ' A. 103.. The learned S.P.P. submits that the evidence of »_'the"'111j:ured i.e., PW4 coupled with the evidence of PW6 and
-the evidence of the police witnesses in this case has conclusively proved that the respondent has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, hevs1;:b_rr1~its that the order of acquittal passed by the . Judge is improper and the same is liable to he"Set.:aside{' _ it
11. Sri. N Girish, learned changer. forth the submits that the indepex1denirlV_Wit.r1esses have' Vhostidle L' to the case of the prosecution.___'ft1ere..is no' corroboration to the evidence of the injured". _He_ne:«.e, that the order of acquittal be confirmed V
12. "rnaterial placed on record, We have to ob::§erVe'l::that.: haslsntfered serious injuries on his person "and ,_:lo'dged the complaint immediately afterthe podllieeivtracedliiiriihlin the teachers' colony on the date ' ' .of the offence. 'I'here'is no reason to disbelieve the version of V the injuries is concerned. Since PW6 the who has examined PW4 has stated that the injurediwas accompanied by P.C.No.4052 of Madiwala Police "ll" station at the time when he was treated in the Victoria hospital the evidence of PW4 and PW6 is trustworthy. "the Y' // 9 evidence of other police officials that they have recorded the statement of the injured also corroborates the evidence of PW4 and PW6. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved that the accusp'ed,pin this case ie.. Yelumalai has caused injuries on the..perso1'£;of"' K PW4 and therefore he is liable to be convictedffor offence.
13. In so far as th'e'«-.r_V1ature._ffofV t117§:l:"'A.§:Jff€VI1C(5; is concerned, there is no material to"'eoi"roborate:the statement of PW4.» that he was in t'I1.I_3zV:i1()S:)i1;¢"sff}; The same is not supported by th€w.evidence:._o*f 'tVle'd'i:eal'f"Officer or any other documentfonfi .recor'd.' 'There is also no proper explanatiofin as to Whether the injuries are grievous in . natutef In the circumstances we hold that PW4 has suffered »Sl1i(1p1t3 _i1iju:fies and therefore, the accused /respondent is :"iiah1e«to't§e_..co'nvicted for the offence u/ s 324 I130. view of the severity of the offence we direct that the A respondent is convicted U/s.32-4 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three months Rigorous imprisonment. Since the V /2' 10 respondent was in custody for more than three months and has already served the sentence, the respondent is for the benefit of set off 11/5 428 Cr.P.C. _ appeal is ailowed in part in the terms 1;1dicate'ci"avbt§vef'~»: