Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2014 is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 6 questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and prayed this Court to set aside the order of conviction and sentence.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

That on 30.10.2010, accused Nos.1 to 6 formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and wrongfully restrained P.W.2 and abused in a filthy language and assaulted with an intention to take away the life of P.W.2. When P.W.1 went to rescue his father - P.W.2, he was also subjected to assault. As a result, both of them have sustained the injuries. Based on the statement of P.W.1, the police have registered the case. Thereafter, conducted the spot mahazar and also seized the weapons which were used for committing the offence. The Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, has filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 504, 307, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons were secured and they did not plead guilty and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 10. Exs.C.1 and 2 and also M.Os.1 to 9 are marked. The incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and they totally denied the incriminating evidence. The defence did not lead any evidence but got confronted Ex.D.1. The Court below, on appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

8. The learned counsel appearing for accused in Criminal Appeal No.126/2014, he vehemently contended that there is no any corroboration by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 9 with regard to the incident. There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel would contend that weapons which were seized were not sent to the opinion of the Doctor and in the absence of the opinion of the Doctor, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused persons. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V. ASHOK GANAPATHI JAGIRDAR AND OTHERS reported in 2019 (1) AKR 555. By relying upon this judgment, the learned counsel would contend that none of the injured disclosed the name of their assailants to the Doctor. Injuries of other witnesses found simple. Weapon seized by Investigating Officer not shown to Doctor for obtaining his opinion about possibility of injuries being caused by such weapon. The circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. This Court in the above judgment held that offence under Section 307 is not made out to convict the accused persons and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel relying upon this judgment also would contend that in the case on hand also, the weapons seized were not sent to the Doctor for obtaining opinion. `Hence, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed and prayed this Court to acquit all the accused persons.

14. P.W.3 is the maternal uncle of P.W.1 and brother-in-law of P.W.2 and he says that on the date of the incident, he was standing in front of the house of P.W.2 and enquiring with P.W.1 about P.W.2. Accused No.1 was sitting in front of his house. P.W.2 is coming towards his house from the shop. At that time, accused No.1 abused him and P.W.2 was consoling him that the sale transaction is already over. Immediately, other accused persons came to the spot with Club, Chopper and Axe and started assaulting on the P.W.2. As a result, he sustained injuries and P.W.1 tried to rescue him. He was also subjected to assault, the accused persons thinking that P.W.2 has lost his life, left the place throwing the weapons at the spot. He himself, Vishakanta and Shankar called Ambulance and shifted the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital. The sister of P.W.2 also accompanied him and she took the injured P.W.2 to K.R Hospital as per the advise of the Doctor. It is also his evidence that he himself and P.W.1 showed the place of the incident to the police. The police came and seized the stained mud, unstained mud, shirt of P.W.1 and seized the weapons. The police have drawn the mahazar and obtained his signature as per Ex.P.2(b). He was subjected to cross-examination, he admits that they were cordial prior to 2010. Accused - Kaleel inflicted the injury with Axe on the head of P.W.2. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 assaulted with club i.e., M.Os.3 and 5, but he cannot accurately state as to which weapon they were having. It is suggested in the cross-examination that P.W.2 was coming in the scooter, due to skid, he fell down and sustained injuries and the same was denied. In the further examination, he says that he also called in the village as Chandrappa and he falsely deposing that he is calling also as Chandrappa and the same was denied. He says that P.Ws.1 and 2 immediately after the incident were made to lie on the pial of the house and blood stains were also there on the pial. The sister of P.W.1 took the injured - P.W.2 to K.R. Hospital.

34. Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment reported in 2019 (1) AKR 555 in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA -VS- ASHOK GANAPATHI JAGIRDAR AND OTHERS, wherein it is observed that weapon seized by the Investigating Officer has not been referred to the Doctor for obtaining his opinion about the possibility of injuries being caused by such weapon and the said circumstance creates doubt. No doubt in the case on hand also, the weapons seized were not referred to P.W.5, the Doctor to obtain his opinion. But the evidence of the Doctor, is consistent that the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 could be caused by using axe and clubs. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident is of ten years old, the sentence was modified. In the case on hand also, the material is consistent regarding the case of the prosecution. Hence, the judgment will not come to the aid of the accused persons.