Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 362 (KAR)

Akshaya Sanjeev v. Gangaraju

2015-03-31

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by injured PW.2 questioning the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.6.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court-XIV in S.C. No. 1595/2012. The six accused were tried and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and for other offences. Case of the prosecution in brief is that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object and picked up a quarrel with the complainant Smt. Akshya Sanjeev (appellant herein) on account of passage dispute between them; the accused scolded and insulted her and thereafter at 11.00 p.m. on 25.5.2012 gathered in front of the house of PW.2 and allegedly damaged the window glasses and doors of her house; PW.2 was also assaulted by the accused. It is further alleged that the accused tried to outrage the modesty of PW.2 and consequently she sustained simple injuries. It is further case of the prosecution that all the accused threatened her with dire consequences of taking away her life. 2. It is no doubt true that the injured PW.2 is examined before the Court and her evidence is sought to be supported by the evidence of P.W.1, who is the eye-witness to the incident in question. On behalf of the accused, Ex. D1 and D2 are marked. 3. Ex. D1 discloses that though the statements of independent witnesses are recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and though such independent witnesses were residing abutting the scene of offence, curiously the Investigating Officer has not cited any of the independent witnesses in the case and has not produced any of their statements before the Court along with the charge-sheet. No explanation is given by the Investigating Officer as to why the independent witnesses are not cited in the charge-sheet and as to why the statements of such witnesses are not produced before the Court. It is admitted by PW.2 that number of residential houses are situated and people are residing near the scene of offence. 4. Admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the families of the accused and PW.2 since last 30 years. The dispute related to the passage and consequently the relationship between the family of the accused and the family of PW.2 was strained. 4. Admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the families of the accused and PW.2 since last 30 years. The dispute related to the passage and consequently the relationship between the family of the accused and the family of PW.2 was strained. Because of the strained relationship between them, there was every likelihood of lodging false complaint against the accused. Since the witnesses examined are very much interested witnesses, their evidence has rightly been scrutinized with care and caution by the trial Court. On evaluation of the material on record, the trial Court finds that there is probability that the prosecution witnesses would have spoken falsehood in view of the strained relationship. If the prosecution was fair enough, it should have cited all the independent witnesses and should have examined such witnesses. There is no reason as to why the version of the independent witnesses is hidden by the Investigating Officer. The injuries sustained by PW.2 are simple injuries. We find from the wound certificate that they were only the nail marks. The act of the accused even if believed to be true, may fall under Section 95 of IPC. Therefore, such act may be ignored as per law particularly in the light of the fact that the alleged incident has taken place in a spur of moment without pre-meditation and because of the dispute with regard to pathway. The trial Court in its lengthy judgment has discussed in detail about the entire evidence on record and has come to a right conclusion. Even on re- appreciating the material, we do not find any ground to disagree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. This being the appeal against the order of acquittal, the appellate Court would normally be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal in case if two views are possible. Since the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. Hence, appeal fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed at the stage of admission.