Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 604 (KAR)

Sathisha v. State of Karnataka

2010-04-24

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2010
Judgment : This appeal is by the accused against the judgment dated 22-10-2003 in SC No.45 of 1997 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Shimoga. 2. The Police Sub-Inspector of Thirthahalli Police charge-sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 326, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused claiming to have worked under the Complainant, made a demand for payment for work on 11-3-1997. Complaint refused to give the said amount, alleging that the accused have to collect the said amount from the Contractor and that he is not responsible. 3. Accused 1 assaulted the complainant with Chopper on his head and also tried to assault on the chest. However, the complainant escaped the said blow and got hurt on the right and left hands. He also attacked with knife and assaulted on chest of the complainant. P.W.8 - Krishnamurthy, came to the rescue of the complainant and pacified the quarrel. P.W.5 took the complainant to the hospital at Thirthahalli. P.W.7-Dr. Manjunatha, on initial examination directed P.W.5 to take the complainant of Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, where the complainant was treated. Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.6, showing three injuries. The police on investigation filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 326, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. To support its case, the prosecution examined mainly, complainant as P.W.1, P.W.5, who took the complainant to the hospital, P.W.7 - the doctor who treated the complainant, P.W.8 who saw the incident and P.W.10 - the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence found the prosecution has established the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. As against the said conviction and sentence the accused have filed this appeal. 5. Sri G.M.Anandam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submit that P.W.8 – Krishnamurthy though has been examined as an independent witness, his evidence do not prove the alleged incident. As against the said conviction and sentence the accused have filed this appeal. 5. Sri G.M.Anandam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submit that P.W.8 – Krishnamurthy though has been examined as an independent witness, his evidence do not prove the alleged incident. According to him, he was 40 feet away from the place of incident and he has not stated any overt acts by the accused. He in an unequivocal terms stated that he left the place. P.W.5 who is another witness in his evidence has stated that he came to the place after the incident and he has not witnessed the incident. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case. 6. Though the complainant alleged that accused assaulted, but his evidence is not reliable as there was quarrel as regards to the payment of coolie. The evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent evidence. Even P.W.7 –doctor who has examined the complainant has not stated that the injuries are grievous in nature or he has treated the complainant. No doctor has been examined from the Kasturba Hospital, Manipal to prove the injuries. In view of lack of clinching evidence to prove the offence, the Trial Court ought not have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. A.V.Ramakrishna, the learned Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that P.W.1 is the injured witness and his evidence is corroborated by the documentary evidence produced at Exs. P.4 and P.6 Ex. P.4 is the accident register and Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.7. P.W.7 - the doctor who examined the complainant, in his evidence has stated that complainant was brought to his hospital and after examination he directed P.W.5 to take the complainant to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. 8. The evidence of the injured witness is corroborated by the wound certificate at Ex.P.6 and the evidence of independent witnesses-P.W.6 and P.W.8. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 is the injured complainant. In his evidence he has stated that accused demanded coolie for which he refused and informed them to collect it from the contractor, who engaged them. Getting annoyed by the same the accused assaulted the complainant with chopper and knife. This evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.1 is the injured complainant. In his evidence he has stated that accused demanded coolie for which he refused and informed them to collect it from the contractor, who engaged them. Getting annoyed by the same the accused assaulted the complainant with chopper and knife. This evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.7 has deposed that the complainant was brought to his hospital and he has issued Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.4 shows injuries on the body of the complainant. 9. No doubt, nobody has been examined by prosecution with regard to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. However, Exs. P.4 and P.6 are concerned, the corroborate each other and evidence of P.W.7 supports the evidence of P.W.1. Further, P.W.8 has also stated that he saw the incident and presence of accused, though he has not stated weapon used by the accused. But his evidence does prove the quarrel between the accused and the complainant. The evidence of P.W.5 does prove the fact that he had taken the complainant to the hospital. The evidence of doctor further prove that he had examined the complainant and found injuries on his body and he directed P.W.5 to take him to Kasturba Hospital at Manipal. With the above evidence along with Exs. P.4 and P.6, I find there is not doubt as regard commission of offence and evidence clearly establish the assault by the accused. 10. P.W.1 has specifically stated the overt acts of the accused and the injuries suffered by him. The wound certificate issued by P.W.7 establish the corresponding injuries. If these evidence are taken into consideration I find that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. Insofar as offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC are concerned, there is no material as held by the Trial Court to convict the accused. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.