Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 177 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Rudresha

2020-01-21

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Somashekar, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned HCGP for the State and so also, counsel for the respondent/accused, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment rendered by the trial Court in C.C. No. 688/2012 dated 13.04.2016 acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 of IPC, by urging various grounds. 3. It is stated in the case of prosecution that on 29.03.2012 at about 7.30 am in Doddappanahalli village, when C.W.1 asked the accused as to when he is going to supply the tap water towards their colony, at that time accused all of a sudden abused the complainant using filthy language and pulled the complainant and assaulted him by hands all over his body and also took M.O.1-Stone and assaulted on CW. 1 over the right eye, forehead, on account of which, the complainant sustained injuries as stated in Ex. P8 - wound certificate issued by P.W. 6 being the Doctor. 4. In pursuance of the act of the accused, complaint came to be filed and crime was registered by the police by recording FIR as per Ex. P6 and so also drew the spot mahazar as per Ex. P2 and also recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Subsequent to completion of investigation by the 10, he laid the charge sheet against accused before the trial Court in C.C. No. 688/2012. Subsequent to issuance of summons, the accused participated in the proceedings all throughout and charges were framed against him. But the accused did not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, got examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8 and M.O.1 and 2. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the parts of the prosecution accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances arising against him. Thereafter, the trial Court having heard the arguments on behalf of prosecution and defence counsel and on appreciation of entire material evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is this judgment which is challenged by the State in this appeal by urging various grounds. Thereafter, the trial Court having heard the arguments on behalf of prosecution and defence counsel and on appreciation of entire material evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is this judgment which is challenged by the State in this appeal by urging various grounds. 6. Learned HCGP for the appellant - State contends that the trial Court has completely misread the evidence of P.W. 1 who has given a statement before the court alleging that on the date of incident he went and enquired the accused as to when he is going to supply the tap-water towards his colony, at that time, all of a sudden the accused had abused the complainant in filthy language and also took M.O.1 - stone and assaulted on his body. Without considering this evidence of P.W. 1 the trial Court acquitted the accused on erroneous grounds. 7. It is the further contention of learned HCGP that the trial Court has totally disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 6 - Doctor who examined P.W. 1 and issued Ex. P8 wound certificate. A perusal of Ex. P8 makes it clear that P.W. 1 has sustained injuries all over the body and the evidence of this witness fully corroborates with the evidence of P.W. 1. Further, it is contended that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W. 8 who is the 10 who collected material evidence to substantiate that the accused has committed offence and so also other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. He further contends that the reasons assigned by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in respect of respondent/accused is erroneous and the trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion which has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. On all these grounds, learned HCGP for the appellant - State seeks interference of this Court by setting-aside the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused/respondent. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused specifically contends that even though P.W. 1 is said to be injured and also filed complaint as per Ex. P1 and that he has been subjected to treatment by P.W. 6 who issued the wound certificate, but his evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.Ws. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused specifically contends that even though P.W. 1 is said to be injured and also filed complaint as per Ex. P1 and that he has been subjected to treatment by P.W. 6 who issued the wound certificate, but his evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and they have given a complete goby to their statements as per Ex. P4 and P5 and moreover, the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence including the contents of Ex. P2 - spot mahazar as well as the allegation made in the complaint against the accused by recording FIR as per Ex. P1. The trial Court by evaluating the entire material evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused and the same does not call for interference, as there are no infirmities found in the acquittal judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 9. In this context of the contention as taken by learned HCGP for the appellant - State and so also, counter made by learned counsel for the respondent/accused, it is relevant to refer Ex. P1-complaint which states that on 29.03.2012 at about 7.30 a.m. in Doddappanahalli village, when P.W. 1 asked the accused as to when he will supply tap water towards their colony, the accused all of a sudden abused the complainant using filthy language and assaulted him by his hands all over his body and also took M.O.1 - stone and assaulted over his right eye, forehead, on account of which the complainant sustained injures. Thereafter, the complaint came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 of IPC. 10. It is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW-2 P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident and witnesses to Ex. P2 - spot mahazar. According to the case of the prosecution they have turned hostile as their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the author of the complaint. Further, as per the wound certificate at Ex. P8 issued by P.W. 6 - Doctor, the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and the same was not corroborate with any independent evidence. Further, as per the wound certificate at Ex. P8 issued by P.W. 6 - Doctor, the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and the same was not corroborate with any independent evidence. But the charge sheet has been laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 IPC. The trial Court has observed that as per the evidence of complainant he sustained single injury over his right eye when the accused assaulted him with means of M.O.1 - Stone. But as per the evidence of P.W. 6 - Doctor, the complainant has sustained three injuries. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to how the other two injuries were sustained by the complainant. In this regard, the trial Court held that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the evidence of complainant. Further, the trial Court has observed that accused has assaulted P.W. 1 with his hands. But there is no explanation in the complaint, charge sheet or in the oral evidence of P.W. 1 that on which part of the body the assault was made. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that prosecution has not adduced cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence to probabilise that the accused has caused injuries to the complainant. 11. However, at a cursory glance of the evidence the prosecution witnesses, it is said that there are no infirmities or glaring mistake committed by the trial Court in appreciation of the entire evidence and it has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not put forth its case by producing cogent and corroborative evidence and as a result acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find no substance in the contentions as taken by the State in this appeal challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal requires to be rejected. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the State is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in C.C. No. 688/2012 dated 13.04.2016 is hereby confirmed.