Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 455 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Ratanchand

2016-06-15

ANAND BYRAREDDY, L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Anand Byrareddy, J. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that he has not received any instructions and hence seeks to retire from the case. However, he is posted with the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the learned Counsel be appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondents in the interest of justice. 2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused in the following circumstances: It was the case of the prosecution that on 10.03.2007 the accused, three in number, with an intention of committing the crime had restrained Sharanappa PW-1 unlawfully and caused grievous injuries by assaulting him with a sword and knife and attempted to commit his murder. Accused No.3 who is said to be the mother of accused Nos.1 and 2 abetted the said act and it is also alleged that accused No.2 actively participated in the commission of the offence and therefore having caused grievous injuries, on the complaint lodged by PW-4, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326, 307 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. After further proceedings, the matter having been committed to the Sessions Court, charges were framed against the accused to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution then examined 15 witnesses and marked several exhibits and material objects. After examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court below framed the following points for consideration. "(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and reliable evidence stating that on 10-3-2007 at about 8.30 a.m. in the land Sy. No.91 of Koralli the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained C.W.2-Sharanappa to proceed in the direction in which he has right to proceed, the accused caused grievous injuries to C.W.2-Sharanappa by assaulting him from talwar and knife and have attempted to commit the murder of C.W.2-Sharanappa by assaulting him with talwar and axe and accused No.3 abetted accused Nos.1 and 2 in the commission of the said offence and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 326, 307 and 109 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code? (ii) What order ?" 4. (ii) What order ?" 4. The background to the alleged offence committed by the accused was that the complainant's father had three brothers namely, Gurushantappa, Ranojappa and Kupendra. Kupendra was said to be no more and the family owned lands bearing Survey Numbers 91, 94, and 95 of Koralli village. Gurushantappa had divided the land between himself and his brothers. Gurushantappa's sons namely Ratanchand and Mallikarjun were quarrelling amongst themselves in connection with land bearing Survey No.91 to the effect that the complainant did not have any share in the land and had called upon him not to cultivate the land and they had also instituted proceedings before the office of the Deputy Commissioner as regards their claim in respect of the land. But however, the complainant was said to be cultivating the land throughout and therefore he negated the objection raised by the sons of Gurushantappa and had grown sugar cane in the said land and the brother of the complainant namely Sharanappa had obtained permission to supply sugar cane to the Bhusnoor sugar factory and had arranged for harvesting the sugar cane crop. On 09.03.2007 labourers had been engaged to harvest the sugar cane crop and when the operations were on, at about 8.30 a.m. on 10.03.2007 the complainant had visited the land and at that point he saw his brother Sharanappa and his son Hanumant-haraya were at the land and Ratanchand and Mallikarjun were armed with an axe and a knife and they were all quarrelling. Mallikarjun and Ratanchand were questioning Sharanappa and his nephew Hanumantharaya, as to what right they had to harvest the sugar cane and thereafter had proceeded to attack them. Ratanc-hand had assaulted Sharanappa with the sword on his right palm, as a result of which his thumb was said to have been severed from his hand and when the complainant and Hanumantharaya tried to intervene, the accused, it is alleged had pushed them to the ground and continued to assault Sharanappa on his left shoulder and thereby caused grievous injuries. The accused Ratanchand once again is said to have assaulted Sharanappa on the left side of his hand and neck, as a result of which he fell to the ground. Thereafter, the accused are said to have left the place on the assumption that Sharanappa was dead. The accused Ratanchand once again is said to have assaulted Sharanappa on the left side of his hand and neck, as a result of which he fell to the ground. Thereafter, the accused are said to have left the place on the assumption that Sharanappa was dead. There was a jeep standing by, belonging to one Babu Kalashetty on which the accused are said to have fled. It is further alleged that accused No.3 who was also present on the land, exhorted accused Nos.1 and 2 to attack Sharanappa and kill him. In the meanwhile the complainant and Hanumantharaya had brought a private jeep and thereafter they had carried Sharanappa to a Government Hospital at Aland and admitted him for treatment. It is thereafter that the Police Sub-Inspector, Aland has visited the hospital at about 10.00 a.m. and recorded the statement of the complainant and registered a case. After further investigation and after gathering other material objects, recording statements of other witnesses and after completion of proceedings, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. 5. It is in this background that the Court below after having found that though it could not be denied that PW-1 had suffered serious injuries, the evidence in support of the alleged charges against the accused was the evidence of PWs-1, 4, 5 and 9. It was found that PW-1 categorically denied the presence of accused No.3 and consequently he had stated in his evidence that accused No.1 assaulted him with an axe and accused No.2 assaulted him with a sword but contrary to this PWs-4 and 5 had deposed that accused No.1 assaulted Sharanappa with an axe and accused No.2 assaulted him with a sword. Further, PW-1 in his evidence had stated that he was alone on the land but contrary to this PWs-4 and 5 had deposed that they were also present on the land at the time of the incident and that when they tried to intervene, to rescue Sharanappa, the accused No.1 threatened them and pushed them away. Therefore, the Court below has seriously doubted the very presence of PW-4 and PW-5 in view of the contradictory statements and coming from the mouth of PW-1 the injured witness. Therefore, the Court below has seriously doubted the very presence of PW-4 and PW-5 in view of the contradictory statements and coming from the mouth of PW-1 the injured witness. The Court below has also contemplated that if really PWs-4 and 5 were also present on the land and tried to rescue Sharanappa from the accused who were armed with a sword and an axe as alleged, it is difficult to understand as to how they had not sustained any injuries. 6. Further it was also in the evidence of PWs-4 and 5 that they carried Sharanappa to hospital in a jeep and that he was heavily bleeding and their clothes were also blood stained but interestingly the Investigating officer had not thought it fit to seize those blood stained clothes. Further, PW-1 in his evidence has stated that at the time of incident there were 20 labourers engaged in harvesting the sugar cane crop. However, the Investigating officer had not made any attempt to record the statement of those witnesses who were the best witnesses to speak about the incident, as they would have been totally independent witnesses. That if really such an offence had been committed, as alleged in the complaint and as stated by PWs-4 and 5, the labourers who were working in the field would have witnessed the incident. Therefore, in the absence of any such independent evidence on record, the testimony of the said witnesses has been characterized as being tutored and interested testimony, especially, when there are material contradictions as regards the weapons seized and the manner in which the same have stated to have been employed by the accused in assaulting the injured and which is contradictorily stated by the said witnesses. 7. Further, PWs-4 and 5 had deposed that immediately after the incident they carried Sharanappa first to the police station and thereafter to the hospital. But the evidence of the Investigating officer discloses that after he was informed of the incident he had come to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant. This is yet another contradiction which has been disbelieved by the Court as to the manner in which the incident may have occurred. Apart from these witnesses, there were other witnesses such as PW-9 who was a circumstantial witness of the incident and the evidence of that witness was also of no help to the prosecution. 8. This is yet another contradiction which has been disbelieved by the Court as to the manner in which the incident may have occurred. Apart from these witnesses, there were other witnesses such as PW-9 who was a circumstantial witness of the incident and the evidence of that witness was also of no help to the prosecution. 8. Similarly, PW-6 who was the father of PW-1 had deposed that he was in his house at the time of the incident and when he visited the land, PW-1 had already been carried to the hospital for treatment and in this manner the Court below has discarded the evidence of this witness, apart from PWs-10, 12 and 14 who were all formal witnesses in respect of the panchanama and spot mahazar etc. In fact PWs-12 and 14 who are the panch witnesses and seizure mahazar, have not supported the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile witnesses. 9. Further, the Court below has discussed the evidence of PW- 3, the medical practitioner of the Government Hospital, Aland, who had stated that Sharanappa was brought by one Nagappa for treatment and that he had been assaulted with an axe and a knife and the doctor has spoken about the serious injuries which were identified as seven in number and that the patient was shifted to a larger hospital as the injuries were very grievous in nature. Though the medical evidence clearly indicated that the victim had suffered grievous injuries, the evidence of the other witnesses was not consistent in the manner as to how those injuries were caused. 10. PW-1 deposed that there was a property dispute between his father and father of accused No.1. He has narrated that accused No.1 assaulted him with an axe on his right palm, as a result of which the thumb got severed and accused No.2 assaulted him with an axe on his right palm and also on the wrist of his left hand and accused No.1 repeated his assault with the axe on the left portion of his chest, thereafter he had lost consciousness. He had further stated that when accused Nos.1 and 2 had attacked him, there was none present on the land and that at the time of the incident accused No.3 was carrying water to her house. However, in his cross-examination he had denied that accused No.3 was present at all. He had further stated that when accused Nos.1 and 2 had attacked him, there was none present on the land and that at the time of the incident accused No.3 was carrying water to her house. However, in his cross-examination he had denied that accused No.3 was present at all. On which he was treated as a hostile witness and the prosecution has cross-examined him on that aspect. 11. PW-5 who is the son of PW-1 had stated that accused No.1 had assaulted PW-1 on his right palm with the sword as a result of which the thumb was severed and he and PW-4 intervened. Accused No.2 had threatened him with the axe thereafter accused No.2 continued to assault his father with an axe on the left hand causing injuries. Accused No.2 also caused injury on the left shoulder and thereafter he had lost consciousness. That accused No.3 was all along exhorting accused Nos.1 and 2 to murder Sharanappa. 12. Given these inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution, though it cannot be denied that PW-1 had suffered serious injuries, since the manner in which the incident had unfolded and the participation of the accused, as alleged, being inconsistently narrated by the witnesses, the trial Court has rightly felt that it was not possible to reconcile the inconsistencies and contradictions and therefore has held that prosecution has failed to bring home the charges beyond all reasonable doubt as against the accused and has acquitted them. Though the learned Additional Advocate General would make an effort to salvage the case, as could be seen from the evidence tendered, it is full of inconsistencies which cannot be reconciled and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused on the grounds as stated. 13. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. The counsel appointed as amicus curiae is entitled to a fee of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only), payable by the State.