Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 282 (KAR)

State by Shthnur Police v. Raju S/o Siddegowda

2011-03-08

B.V.PINTO

body2011
Judgment :- This appeal is by the State challenging the judgment dated 28.02.2004 passed by the FTC-3, Bangalore Rural district in S.C.No.254/2000 acquitting the accused-respondents of the offences under Sections 143, 316, 323, 354 & 504 r/w. Sec.149 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.09.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., at Arakatti Doddi village, the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and thereafter they have caused assault on PWs 1 and 4 with an intention to outrage their modesty, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 354 r/w. 149 of IPC. It is further alleged that at the said place, date and time, the accused have assaulted PW-1 by holding her tuft, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC. It is further alleged that on the said place, date and time, accused No.1 has assaulted and kicked PW-4 who was pregnant for 8 months, as a result of which, the child in the womb had died and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 316 r/w 149 of IPC. It is also further alleged that on the said place, date and time, accused have used filthy language against the complainant PW-2, thereby, they are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 504 r/w 149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 10 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of all the offences charged against them. Hence, the State has filed this appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State and Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah & Sri. K.S.A. Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned HCGP submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, who are mother and daughter is cogent and clear in so far as the act of assault and kicks given by accused No.1 to PW.4. PW.4 was pregnant by 8 months. It is also stated that PW-4 was examined by the doctor PW-2 immediately after the incident and PW-2 has given the wound certificate as per Ex.P1. The wound certificate contains the name of the accused and also the time of assault. PW.4 was pregnant by 8 months. It is also stated that PW-4 was examined by the doctor PW-2 immediately after the incident and PW-2 has given the wound certificate as per Ex.P1. The wound certificate contains the name of the accused and also the time of assault. He further submits that Ex.P6 is the certificate issued by the Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore, which indicates that PW-4 has delivered a male child and had died as a result of the injury caused by the accused. Hence, he submits that the prosecution has proved the case and the order of acquittal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that PWs.5, 7 & 9 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, who have also supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the accused may be convicted. 6. Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that, from Ex.P.6 , it is clear that PW-4 had delivered a male child alive and that the child has died after the delivery. He submits that the doctor of the Vani Vilas Hospital, who had conducted the delivery has not been examined and therefore, it cannot be said that the death of the child has a direct consequences of the injury said to have been caused by the accused. He submits that there is contradictory evidence of witnesses and that no specific overt acts have been alleged against the individual accused. He therefore submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant interference and submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution in this case commences with the filing of the complaint by PW-1 Nathamma before the Sathanur police station on 12.09.2000. It is averred in the said complainant that the complainant is residing in Arakantti Doddi village of Kanakapura taluk and that her daughter Pramila was married about four years back and she is pregnant for the second time by 8 ½ months as on the date of the incident. It is mentioned in the complaint that on 08.09.2000. Since there was no current till evening and when the current came, she and her brother Channagiri gowda went to put on the motor for procuring drinking water. It is mentioned in the complaint that on 08.09.2000. Since there was no current till evening and when the current came, she and her brother Channagiri gowda went to put on the motor for procuring drinking water. At that time, all the accused persons came and abused her and her brother and there was some altercation between them and the accused held her tuft and dragged her. Her daughter Pramila PW-4, who was in the house came out on hearing the quarrel and at that time, accused No.1 assaulted her pregnant daughter by holding her tuft and by kicking her on her stomach and her daughter fell down. At that time, people came and rescued her and her daughter from the clutches of the accused and thereafter, she went to the hospital. Since her daughter was bleeding, she was taken to the hospital and from there to Vani Vilas Hospital. The doctor conducted an operation on her on 10.09.2000 and conducted delivery at 11.30 p.m. in the night, but the child had died. Therefore, the complaint has been filed. 8. PW-1 Nathamma has stated the aforesaid facts in the court and also has stated that the death of the child of her daughter is as a result of kicking by accused No.1 Raju and others. 9. PW-2 Dr. L. Raju has stated that on 09.09.2000 at about 12.15 p.m. PW-4 Pramila was brought to the Government Hospital, Kanakapura and it was found that PW-4 was pregnant by 8 months and there was one injury on her left finger and she complained of pain in her stomach and injury caused to PW-4 is simple in nature. 10. PW.3 K.C. Mahendra, constable at Sathnur police-Station has registered a case, PW-4 is the injured daughter of PW-1 and in the court she has reiterated the version of PW-1 her mother and also stated that accused No.1 Raju has assaulted and kicked her on her stomach. 11. PW-5 Lokesha, PW-8 Channagirigowda and PW-9 Rajesh have also supported the case of the prosecution that acused Raju has assaulted Prameela on her stomach. PW6 and PW-7 are witnesses to the spot mahazar. PW-10 is the ASI who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 12. 11. PW-5 Lokesha, PW-8 Channagirigowda and PW-9 Rajesh have also supported the case of the prosecution that acused Raju has assaulted Prameela on her stomach. PW6 and PW-7 are witnesses to the spot mahazar. PW-10 is the ASI who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 12. From the materials on record, it is seen that the child of PW-4 has not died in the stomach, whereas Exts.P6 and P7 indicate that the child was alive when PW-4 delivered in the hospital. Doctor from Vanivilas Hospital is not examined under the circumstances, charge under Section 316 IPC is not proved by the prosecution. 13. So far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the prosecution points out at the overt acts of accused No.1 Raju. There are no specific overt acts alleged against other accused and therefore, order of acquittal passed against accused Nos.2 to 5 does not warrant interference. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, I find that the prosecution has proved the case against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and he deserves to be convicted for the said offence. 14. In the result, appeal filed by the State is allowed in part. A-1 is convicted for offence under Section 323 of IPC. The order of acquittal passed against accused Nos.2 to 5 is hereby confirmed. Accused No.1 Raju is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo S.I. for a period of ten days for the offence under section 323 of IPC. Fine amount shall be deposited within thirty days from today, failing which the Trial Court is directed to execute the sentence.