Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 434 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Prashanth Rai

2015-04-15

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.07.2011 passed by the III Additional Sessions Court, Mangalore, in S.C. No. 100/2007 is appealed against by the State. The accused were tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 332, 395 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that when P.W. 13-Superintendent of Police, who was working as COD in Mangalore Division, was proceeding in a Government car bearing registration No. KA-01-Z-1028 driven by P.W. 1, it colluded with a private bus bearing registration No. KA-20-A-130; according to the complaint lodged by P.W. 13, the driver of the bus (accused No. 2) drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, consequent upon which the accident has taken place, as a result of which the right side of the car which came in contact with the bus suffered damage; when the car stood at a distance, accused Nos. 1 to 6 got down from the bus, came near the Government car and started pressurizing P.W. 13 to settle the matter on the spot; accused No. 1 caught hold the shirt collar of P.W. 13 and assaulted on his face causing injury and snatched 3 notes of Rs. 500/- denomination from the shirt pocket of P.W. 13; accused No. 2 also caught hold the shirt collar of P.W. 1 and assaulted with his hands on his head and snatched one note of Rs. 500/- denomination from the shirt pocket of P.W. 1; thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 6 got the signature of P.W. 1 forcibly on the white paper by causing simple hurt on his right shoulder; all the accused deterred P.Ws. 1 and 13 (Government servants) from discharging their official duties. P.W. 13 gave a complaint as per Ex. P5 before P.W. 6 who was the Station House Officer at Bantwal Rural Police Station during the relevant point of time, which came to be registered in Crime No. 4/2007; F.I.R. as per Ex. P6 came to be issued and sent to jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W. 14-Inspector of Police took up further investigation and laid the charge-sheet for the aforementioned offences. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses, got marked 8 exhibits and 1 material objects. P6 came to be issued and sent to jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W. 14-Inspector of Police took up further investigation and laid the charge-sheet for the aforementioned offences. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses, got marked 8 exhibits and 1 material objects. On behalf of defence, accused No. 1 was examined as D.W. 1 and got marked 4 documents. As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused. 4. On going through the entire material on record and the judgment of the Court below, we find that there is absolutely no scope for this Court to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. P.Ws. 1 and 13, the eye witnesses to the incident (who are the police officials) have deposed that there was collision between the car and bus at about 6.30 p.m. on 10.01.2007 on a National Highway No. 64 leading from Bantwal to Belthangady, within the limits of village Kavalapadoor, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District; Government car possessed by P.W. 13 had suffered damage on the right side; accused Nos. 1 to 6 got down from the bus and after manhandling P.Ws. 1 and 13, robbed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from P.Ws. 1 and 13, got Ex. D4 written forcibly from P.W. 1 and thereafter they fled away from the scene. The D.W. 1 does not dispute that there was collision between the car and bus; according to D.W. 1, the bus was damaged because of the accident; the car was driven by P.W. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and because of such driving by P.W. 1, the accident has taken place; since the bus was damaged, accused No. 2 being the driver of the bus sought for compensation; in order to prohibit accused No. 2 from lodging complaint against P.W. 1, P.W. 13 gave Rs. 2,000/- to accused No. 2 as compensation for the damage sustained to the bus; such compromise entered voluntarily between the parties was got written in front of three panchas as per Ex. D4. All other important witnesses such as panchas to scene of offence, recovery panchanama have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 5. Looking to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 13 and evidence of D.W. 1, it is clear that the scene of offence is not in dispute. D4. All other important witnesses such as panchas to scene of offence, recovery panchanama have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 5. Looking to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 13 and evidence of D.W. 1, it is clear that the scene of offence is not in dispute. So also, it is not in dispute that the accident had taken place between the car and the bus. However, the subsequent facts relating to the alleged robbing by the accused of Rs. 2,000/- from P.Ws. 1 and 13 is a disputed fact. P.W. 1 has admitted in the cross-examination that he was on duty and that himself and P.W. 13 were not wearing uniform; P.W. 13 possessed mobile and he informed the Police Control Room and within 10 minutes of the said incident, Circle Inspector of Bantwal Rural Police Station came to the spot; however, P.W. 14-Circle Inspector has admitted that he visited the spot for the first time at about 8.30 p.m. but P.W. 13 was not present at that point of time, so also there was no public presence. It is also admitted by P.W. 14 that at that point of time he enquired with P.W. 1, however he did not obtain any complaint from P.W. 1 on the spot. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 13-B. Mahanthesh went to Bantwal Rural Police Station for lodging the complaint. P.W. 13 met P.W. 14 at about 9.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. and thereafter complaint came to be lodged. However, according to P.W. 13-Superintendent of Police, who was traveling in the car, after he gave telephonic information from the spot police came to the spot within half an hour or 10 minutes and thereafter all of them went to the police station and he lodged complaint as per Ex. P5; it may be about 7.00 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. on 10.01.2007. But, the endorsement in the complaint discloses that the complaint came to be lodged at 9.30 p.m. The correction of timing is found on the first information and such correction is made by P.W. 6 as admitted by him. There is no reason as to why the timing of lodging the complaint should be tampered. 6. P.W. 14 has admitted in the cross-examination that accused Nos. 3 to 6 were not the passengers in the bus. If it is so, the version of P.Ws. There is no reason as to why the timing of lodging the complaint should be tampered. 6. P.W. 14 has admitted in the cross-examination that accused Nos. 3 to 6 were not the passengers in the bus. If it is so, the version of P.Ws. 1 and 13 that all the accused Nos. 1 to 6 got from the bus and robbed them, appears to be a false story. The very basis of the case of the prosecution is shrouded in mystery. The presence of accused Nos. 3 to 6 appears to be doubtful and unbelievable in view of the admission of P.W. 14 that they were not the passengers of the bus. Though it is the prosecution case as well as deposition of P.Ws. 1 and 13 that Ex. D4 was got written by accused Nos. 1 to 6 forcibly, such version appears to be a created one. P.W. 13 is none other than the Superintendent of Police working at Mangalore in whose jurisdiction the incident has taken place. It is unthinkable that accused Nos. 1 to 6 would have threatened P.W. 13 (Superintendent of Police) and extracted Rs. 2,000/- from him forcibly. On the other hand, tenor of Ex. D4 would clearly reveal that the same is written patiently by P.W. 1 in his own handwriting. There is not even one major correction made by P.W. 1 in Ex. D4. Ex. D4 is signed by three other witnesses. It is clearly stated in Ex. D4 that there was break failure of the car, consequent upon which it collided against bus and they have compromised the matter amicably. It is also clarified in Ex. D4 that the accident has taken place because of the fault of P.W. 1, not because of fault of any of the accused. 7. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we find that the Trial Court is justified in holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Since the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is the only view possible under the facts and circumstances, no interference is called for. The appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.