Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 6 (KAR)

STATE OF KARNATAKA v. MANIKYA

2004-01-05

K.RAMANNA, M.F.SALDANHA

body2004
M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) : Though the incident in this case is not one of grave seriusness, an interesting submission was advanced by the learned counsel who represented the accused, which requires to be dealt with as it has strong repercussions in virtually thousands of similar cases. The prosecution allegation is that the incident took place in a Bar on 7-11-1999 at about 7. 30 p. m. The complainant is a driver and it is his case that when he returned from duty PWs. Manju and Manjunath took him to the Chamundeshwari brandy shop where they initially had some rum and then, the other PWs changed over to whisky. The accused turned up there and started a quarrel in the course of which he is alleged to have assaulted Manjunatha with his chappal and his is alleged to have assaulted the complainant shanmuga with a stone resulting in the loss of one tooth. The case was reported to the police who arrested the accused, completed their investigation. and charge-sheeted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 355 and 506 (II) of IPC. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused and it does appear to us from the judgment that the principal reasons for the acquittal is because pws. 5 and 6 who are alleged to have been present and more so PW. 5 claims to have been the victim of the assault have not supported the prosecution case. It is against the order of acquittal that the State has filed an appeal. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned State Counsel we were of the view that the decision requires reconsideration and we issued notice to the accused who remained unrepresented. We accordingly appointed an amicus curiae Counsel and we have heard both the learned counsel on merits today. ( 3 ) THE only submission canvassed by the learned Government Counsel is that the evidence of the complainant Shanmuga is perfectly acceptable, that there has been virtually no cross-examination to dispute his evidence that it was the accused who assaulted him and caused the injury and secondly, the learned Government Counsel brings it to our notice that in this case the doctor P. W. 3 has very clearly established the injury which is the strongest corroboration that the Court would look for. He also points out that no valid reasons have been given for discarding the evidence of the complainant and that consequently, a conviction will have to be recorded against the accused. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned amicus curiae Counsel has raised a very interesting submission. What he points out is that even though the record indicates that the injured complainant has given evidence which can hardly be called into question, that this is a case in which two other persons pw. 5 and PW. 6 were obviously present when the incident took place. PW. 5 claims to have been assaulted with a chappal by the accused. Despite all these allegations neither of these witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Learned Counsel submits. that the state of the record would make it extremely dangerous to rely on the sole testimony of the complainant and record a conviction when it can legitimately be insisted upon that some corroborative evidence particularly that of the other persons present will be necessary before sustaining a conviction. ( 5 ) OUR simple answer to this argument is that the Court is required to weigh the evidence witness by witness. In a case where the complainant who is injured has deposed where there is virtually no challenge to the correctness of the depositions i. e. the narration regarding the assault and furthermore, where it is demonstrated that PW. 3 the doctor fully corroborates the version of pw. 1, the Court will have to treat all of this as good evidence and act upon it. The learned defence Counsel is right when he points out that normally a court would look for corroboration from other source but we need to make it very clear here that this is not an essential requirement of the law. If the evidence of the complainant is truthful, if it inspires confidence and if it is supported by the medical evidence, a conviction is sustainable on this evidence alone. Corroboration from other oral evidence is certainly useful, it is very much desirable but if it is not forthcoming, the prosecution case cannot suffer for this reason. The error committed by the trial courts in thousands of cases of this type of discarding perfectly valid evidence of the complainant on the ground that other independent evidence is not available is not a correct approach and will have to be deprecated. The error committed by the trial courts in thousands of cases of this type of discarding perfectly valid evidence of the complainant on the ground that other independent evidence is not available is not a correct approach and will have to be deprecated. ( 6 ) THE real interesting submission canvassed by the learned defence Counsel was that where the two other persons who are present did not support the complainant, that their evidence would be destructive of the evidence of PW. 1 i. e. the complainant. What we need to point out is that if for obvious reasons some of the other witnesses are won over and they did not support the prosecution case, their misconduct or their evidence which is virtually of no value cannot under any circumstances undermine or destroy the complainant's evidence which is capable of standing on its own feet. The calibre of evidence of PW. 5 and PW. 6 very clearly indicates that it is evidence of zero credibility and such evidence cannot be destructive of the evidence of PW. 1, which is perfectly good evidence. This is another fault which is often committed by the trial courts while holding that because the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case that the good part of the evidence of the complainant is also liable to suffer for this reason. The right way of looking at the position is that if those witnesses were not non-existing or were not at all there, would the evidence of the complainant have been sufficient in its own right to sustain a conviction and the answer is in the affirmative. Furthermore, what we need to point out is that where the evidence of the remaining witnesses who did not support the prosecution case is so very weak and useless, it would virtually have to be ignored or set aside but this cannot be used as a ground for undermining or rejecting the other prosecution. evidence which is good evidence. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position, we hold that the prosecution has established that the accused had caused the injury in question to the complainant. We however confine the conviction to one under section 324, IPC in view of the fact that several of the additional circumstances which would be necessary to bring it under section 326, IPC have not been established. We however confine the conviction to one under section 324, IPC in view of the fact that several of the additional circumstances which would be necessary to bring it under section 326, IPC have not been established. In modification of the order passed by the trial Court, while confirming the acquittal under the remaining heads, we convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 324, IPC and direct that he should pay a fine quantified at Rs. 1000/ -. Since the accused is unrepresented trial Court to issue notice to him, afford him 12 weeks time to deposit the fine amount failing which the same to be recovered from him. After recovery, notice to be issued to the injured complainant. and the amount of Rs. 1000/- to be paid over to him as compensation. With these directions the appeal which succeeds to stand disposed off. ( 8 ) IN view of the grounds set out in I. A. I delay is condoned. I. A. I is allowed. The office to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the learned Counsel who has appeared amicus curiae. ( 9 ) THE Registrar General to circulate a copy of this judgment to the subordinate criminal Courts in the State. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .