Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1211 (KAR)

Goudappa v. State of Karnataka

2019-06-12

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused Nos. 1 to 4 challenging the judgment dated 16.03.2017, in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2013, passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi wherein the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi in C.C. No. 10/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 355, 504 r/w section 34 of IPC was confirmed. 2. Though this case is listed for admission, today, the learned counsel for petitioner- accused has remained absent. Since the Criminal Revision Petition cannot be dismissed for default, I have heard the learned HCGP and perused the records. 3. The contentions taken by the petitioners-accused are that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Court below are oppose to law and to the material available on record. It is further contended that the prosecution's case mainly rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no positive evidence lead by the prosecution to prove such circumstances and the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record has wrongly convicted the petitioners-accused. It is further contended in the that PW-1, in his evidence, has deposed that four to five people beaten him with various weapons, but he has not stated as to which accused beaten him with which weapon. In that light, the evidence of PW-1 is doubtful. PW-1 has created a story and on the basis of his evidence, the petitioners-accused are falsely implicated in the case and the Trial Court has also wrongly convicted the petitioners-accused. It is further contended that the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP has vehemently argued and contended that there was a strong motive behind the incident. Accused No. 1 uprooted flowering plants grown by the complainant and in this background on 21.01.2010 at 4.45 p.m. all the accused with their common intention picked up a quarrel with complainant-PW-1 and assaulted him. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 to PW-6 corroborates with each other and there is no material to discard the evidence of these witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 to PW-6 corroborates with each other and there is no material to discard the evidence of these witnesses. It is further submitted that PW-9 Doctor, who treated the injured/PW-1 has also supported the case of the prosecution and even PW-10, who is said to be the scribe of the complaint has also supported the case of the prosecution and has identified the signature of the complainant and his handwriting. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and gone through the records of the Trial Court secured in this behalf. 6. PW-1 is the complainant. In his evidence, he has deposed regarding the accused uprooting flowering plants grown by him and taking place a quarrel in this behalf. PW-1 has deposed that when he asked accused No. 1 as to why he has done so, to which he replied that he will cut down and remove those plants. In his evidence, PW-1 has deposed that on the alleged date of incident, accused No. 1 and 2 came to the spot, accused No. 2 assaulted on his head with a stick and remaining accused persons assaulted him with wooden clubs and chappal. He has deposed that accused No. 4 assaulted him with a chappal and accused No. 1 assaulted him by using a wooden club and other accused kicked him and assaulted him with hands. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elucidated so as to discard the evidence of PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 has also been supported by the evidence of PW-9/doctor, who treated him, immediately after the incident. 7. In his evidence, PW-9 has deposed that the injured was brought to the hospital with the history of assault and he treated him and issued wound certificate, which is marked as per Ex.P6. Even in the wound certificate also it has been mentioned that on 21.01.2010, the injured sustained injuries due to assault and was treated for the same. The doctor has opined that the said injuries are simple in nature and they can be caused due to assault with a blunt and hard object. Even in the wound certificate also it has been mentioned that on 21.01.2010, the injured sustained injuries due to assault and was treated for the same. The doctor has opined that the said injuries are simple in nature and they can be caused due to assault with a blunt and hard object. The said fact is also not seriously disputed at the time of cross-examination. 8. The evidence of PW-1 is also supported by the evidence of eyewitnesses i.e. PW-5 and PW-6. They have supported the case of the prosecution and the complainant. During the course of their cross-examination, nothing has been elucidated to discard the same. Though they have been cross-examined in length, during the course of cross-examination of PW-5 it has been elucidated that at the time of said Galata he was at the distance of 5-6 feet. The evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, who are said to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, cannot be disbelieved. Though PW-4 and PW-7, who are said to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 cannot be discarded, since nothing has been elucidated during the course of their cross-examination. 9. By going through the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6, it clearly shows that there is corroboration. Though it is contended in the petition that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, I am surprised to say so because when the injured-complainant himself is a witness to the incident and eyewitnesses are also there, under such circumstances, the ground mentioned in the petition is not justifiable and correct. It is contended that there are contradictions and omissions. 10. In the first instance, as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the said contradictions have to be contradicted to the witnesses and thereafter the same has to be put to the investigating agent, then only the contradictions and omissions can be looked into, but no such effort has been made during the cross-examination. In that light, the said contention also cannot be accepted. No doubt there are some minor contradictions and omissions, but while giving the evidence at belated stage, there may be some contradictions, and no verbatim evidence can be expected by any witnesses, though they were present during the course of alleged incident. In that light, the said contention also cannot be accepted. No doubt there are some minor contradictions and omissions, but while giving the evidence at belated stage, there may be some contradictions, and no verbatim evidence can be expected by any witnesses, though they were present during the course of alleged incident. In the light of the discussions held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence which has been produced clearly shows that the petitioners-accused were involved in the alleged crime and there is nothing to show that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. 11. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court. After considering the evidence and material placed on record, I come to the conclusion that the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused. There is no error or illegality in passing of the judgments by both the Courts below. 12. The petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Courts below.