Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 186 (KAR)

Ramesh Reddy v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-22

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT K Somashekar, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment rendered by the Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Spl.C.No.30/2010 dated 16.08.2010 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The accused was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act. Further, the accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC and in default, to undergo SI for two months. Further, the accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and in default, to undergo SI for a period of six months. Further, for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo SI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for two years. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Further, acting under Section 357(b) Cr.P.C., a sum of Rs.8,000/- was awarded as compensation to PW.2 for the injuries sustained by him from out of the fine amount. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that complainant namely Gopi was moving on the road in front of the house of Angadi Rajanna at around 7.50 p.m on 15.10.2009, at Kurumaradikere village. At that time, accused namely Ramesh Reddy came there and due to earlier ill-will that existed between them in relation to previous elections, he abused him in filthy language by taking up his caste and started blaming that his father had foisted a false case against him and made him to attend court proceedings unnecessarily and saying so, the accused assaulted him with hands and legs all over his body. When CW.2 Parasappa came there to save the complainant, the accused abused him by taking his caste name and hit CW.2 with a stone which was there nearby on his head thereby causing grievous hurt. In the meantime, CWs.4 to 6 arrived at the spot and tried to extricate the quarrel. Thereafter, the complainant and CW.2 were taken to the hospital. In the meantime, CWs.4 to 6 arrived at the spot and tried to extricate the quarrel. Thereafter, the complainant and CW.2 were taken to the hospital. Upon receipt of the hospital memo, CW.16 - the PSI of Rural Police Station visited the Government Hospital where CWs.1 and 2 were taking treatment and received written complaint from the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, he registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Further, CW.17 - Dy.SP, Chitradurga took up case for investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and so also, in the present of panch witnesses conducted spot mahazar and also secured the wound certificate of CWs.1 and 2 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Special court for trial. 4. Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet against the accused, the trial Court framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial was proceeded against the accused. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O.1. 5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for enabling the incriminating statement appeared against him. But the accused declined the truth of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. but the contradictory statement of PW.3, PW.6 have been got marked as Exs.D1 to D5 respectively and also OPD slip as per Ex.D6 and receipt as per Ex.D7. The trial Court after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and so also the defence counsel and on evaluating the entire material evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is this judgment which is challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. 6. The trial Court after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and so also the defence counsel and on evaluating the entire material evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is this judgment which is challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. 6. Sri R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae for appellant contends that the trial Court committed an error by holding conviction against the accused for the offences which are incorporated in the operative portion of the order without appreciating the evidence on record. He contends that the trial Court convicted the accused placing reliance on interested witnesses and there being no corroborative evidence from the independent witnesses. The court below committed error by taking into consideration the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He contends that PW.1 in his complaint as per Ex.P1 has not stated about the use of M.O.1 - stone by the accused for causing injury to him. He states that the accused has assaulted him by hands. Ex.P1 is the complaint written by CW.7 - Sharanappa but he has not been examined in this case. PW.1 has not stated anything in the complaint about the presence of PW.2- Parasappa or the assault on him or the injuries sustained. He admits in his cross-examination that he does not know as to who wrote the complaint and also admits the political rivalry between him and the accused. 7. It is contended that PW.3 - Laxmana is the person who saw the quarrel and accused assaulting PW.1 and PW.2 by stone. But whereas the house of PW.3 and scene of crime where PW.11 the shop keeper running the grocery shop is situated at a distance of furlong. The accused assaulting by stone to PW.1 is contrary to his statement. Ex.D1 which is the statement of PW.3 shows that he heard about the quarrel and then went to the spot. This shows that he is not the eye witness. 8. It is further contended that PW.4 has turned hostile by not supporting the case of prosecution. PW.11 - Rajanna the shop keeper states that there was no such incident happened between the accused and the complainant. This shows that he is not the eye witness. 8. It is further contended that PW.4 has turned hostile by not supporting the case of prosecution. PW.11 - Rajanna the shop keeper states that there was no such incident happened between the accused and the complainant. PW.5 has partly turned hostile to the case of prosecution where he states that he has seen the accused assaulting PW.2 but has not seen the assault made on PW.1. He is the witness to spot mahazar but denies the contents of mahazar at Ex.P3. PW.9 is the wife of PW.2. The statement made by her in the cross-examination it can be inferred that she is not a natural witnesses. All these discrepancies has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. 9. The second limb of the arguments advanced by Sri R.Srinivasa Gowda - Amicus Curiae for appellant is that PWs.3 and 6 they have been examined on the parts of the prosecution but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Their statements runs contrary to the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.5 and PW.11. PW.12 being a Doctor who issued wound certificate as per Ex.P9 relating to PW.1 wherein the injuries inflicted on his person are found to be simple in nature. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate relating to PW.2 Parasappa as where the Doctor who subjected him to examination and issued wound certificate which reveals that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. But PWs.1 and 2 are said to have been fell down on the ground and therefore, have sustained injuries. The said evidence on the parts of the prosecution has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, in this appeal it requires to revisit the impugned judgment by rescanning the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses. 10. It is further contended that the court below committed error in not noticing that when PW.7 - PSI arrested the accused he was having plaster of paris due to the fracture sustained by him. But whereas a false case has been foisted against accused alleging that he assaulted PW.1 and PW.2 with his hand, which is only due to the political rivalry that existed between the complainant and the accused. But whereas a false case has been foisted against accused alleging that he assaulted PW.1 and PW.2 with his hand, which is only due to the political rivalry that existed between the complainant and the accused. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. Further, insofar as conviction under the Atrocities Act for abusing the complainant by taking his caste is concerned, it is totally a false allegation made against the accused due to political rivalry between complainant and accused. On all these grounds, learned Amicus Curiae contends that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the evidence on the parts of the prosecution has to be appreciated by this Court in a proper perspective manner by interfering with the impugned judgment as the same suffers from serious infirmities in as much as complainant himself does not speak about any assault on PW.2 by the accused and he states that accused assaulted him with the stone which is not his case in the complaint and there is absolutely no evidence of the injured PW.2 and the evidence of PWs.3, 5, 6 and 9 who are the alleged eye witnesses cannot be believed as they are the close relatives of the injured persons. Further, the Doctor who treated PWs.1 and 2 has not been examined and that X-ray, CT scan report and the case sheet is not collected by the investigating officer and admittedly there was previous ill-will between accused and complaint due to previous elections and on account of the said ill-will, a false case has been foisted against the accused making use of the injuries which they had sustained in a road accident. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, he seeks for setting aside the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court by allowing the present appeal. 11. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, he seeks for setting aside the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court by allowing the present appeal. 11. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent - State contends that there is ample evidence placed by the prosecution on record to establish the charges leveled against the accused person, in as much as, the evidence of complainant who is examined as PW.1 and that of eye witnesses PWs.3, 5, 6 and 9 coupled with the medical evidence of PW.12 being the Doctor who issued wound certificates as per Ex.P9 and 10. All these would clearly establish that the accused is guilty of causing grievous hurt to PW.2 - Parasappa with M.O.1 stone and causing simple injuries to PW.1 - Gopi. He submits that though PWs.4 and 11 who are the other eye witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, but the prosecution has been able to establish its case through the evidence of PWs.3, 5, 6 and 9. He further contends though PW.2 who is the injured, could not able to depose any evidence on account of his physical incapacity, but the evidence obtained on record would clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused assaulted PWs.1 and 2 on 15.10.2009 thereby causing simple injuries to PW.1 and grievous injuries to PW.2 and so also he abused complainant by taking up his caste. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused person for aforesaid offences and there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court. The trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. On these grounds learned HCGP for the respondent - State sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. The trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. On these grounds learned HCGP for the respondent - State sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. It is in this context of contentions as taken by the learned Amicus Curiae and so also the counter made by learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent/ State it is relevant to refer the evidence of PW-1 Gopi said to be the injured who has given a complaint as per Ex.P1 stating that on 15.10.2009 at around 07.15 p.m., at Kurumardikere Village, Chitradurga Taluk and District, when he was moving on the road, in front of the house of one Angadi Rajanna, at that time, accused Ramesh Reddy came there and in the light of earlier ill-will that existed between them in relation to previous elections, he called and abused the complainant by taking up the name of his caste and chided him stating that his father has foisted a false complaint against the said Ramesh Reddy and has made him to attend the Court proceedings unnecessarily and so saying, assaulted the complainant with hands and legs and also all over his body. When PW-2 Parasappa said to be the senior uncle of PW-1 Gopi came to rescue him, the accused also abused him in filthy language and took a stone, which was nearby and hit PW-2 on his head and near his ear and caused grievous hurt, as a result of which, blood was oozing and he sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, both PWs-1 and 2 were shifted by Autorickshaw to the Government hospital, Chitradurga. It is stated in the theory of the prosecution that due to the assault made by the accused on PW-1, he had sustained injuries on his hands, legs and also on his chest as well as other parts of the body as indicated in the Wound Certificate, which is at Ex.P9. Similarly, PW-2 Parasappa who is said to be the injured had also sustained grievous injuries as indicated in Ex.P10, Wound Certificate issued by PW-12 Dr.B.L.Naika. The accused had assaulted PW-2 not only by his hands but also by means of M.O.1-Stone. PW-2 had suffered grievous injuries and was not able to give evidence. Similarly, PW-2 Parasappa who is said to be the injured had also sustained grievous injuries as indicated in Ex.P10, Wound Certificate issued by PW-12 Dr.B.L.Naika. The accused had assaulted PW-2 not only by his hands but also by means of M.O.1-Stone. PW-2 had suffered grievous injuries and was not able to give evidence. Even though he has been secured by the prosecution, but his evidence has been dispensed with. 13. The Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of PWs-3, 5, 6 and 9. Even though, other eye-witnesses have also been examined they did not support the case of the prosecution. But, PW-3 Laxmana has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, the accused called the complainant, PW-1 and abused him in filthy language by taking the name of his caste and assaulted him on his chest and neck and the accused also assaulted PW-2 who came to rescue PW-1 from the hands of the accused, the accused also hit PW-2 with a stone on his head, left ear and chest, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. 14. Pws-4 and 8 who were also said to be the eyewitnesses have stated that by the time, they came to the spot, where the incident had occurred, they saw PWs-1 and 2 were injured and were in front of the house of Angadi Rajanna - PW-11. PW-11, Rajanna had been examined on behalf of the prosecution but he did not speak anything about the incident, narrated in the complaint by PW-1 and so also, he did not specifically state that he saw the incident; how it occurred and how the accused assaulted PWs-1 and 2 and caused injuries as reflected in Exs.P9 and 10. There is no dispute that PW-2 Parasappa did not speak anything about the assault made by the accused on him by a stone, which is said to have been seized under Ex.P3, Mahazar, by PW-13, namely, C.S.Rathod, being the Investigation Officer in the presence of the panch witnesses. 15. Pw-5 Govindappa who is said to be the father of PW-1 has stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused assaulting PW-2 with M.O.1-stone on his head and caused him injuries and also accused abusing him by taking up his caste. 16. 15. Pw-5 Govindappa who is said to be the father of PW-1 has stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused assaulting PW-2 with M.O.1-stone on his head and caused him injuries and also accused abusing him by taking up his caste. 16. Pw-9 Lakkamma said to be the wife of PW-2 had specifically stated in her evidence that she has gone to the shop of Angadi Rajanna in the evening of 15.10.2009 and at that time, she saw accused assaulting PWs-1 and 2 with M.O.1 - stone. At a cursory glance of her evidence, as per the theory put forth by the prosecution and also the crossexamination done by the defence counsel, it is to be noted that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in respect of the evidence of PWs-3, 5, 6 and PW-9 who are the alleged eye witnesses. But there was a grudge in between the father of PW-1 and so also the accused. As such, the incident took place according to the theory put forth by the prosecution and so also the contents narrated in the complaint. But, at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the evidence of PW-5, there appears to be clouds of doubt. There is no dispute that PW-1 lodged a complaint making allegations against the accused but doubting the theory as put forth regarding M.O.1, a big sized stone said to have been seized by the I.O. under Ex.P3 but the same has been produced by PW-5. 17. Pw-10 Ningappa is the only witness examined by the prosecution with regard to seizure of M.O.1- stone. But his evidence is not forthcoming to prove the guilt of the accused with regard to the seizure of M.O.1 under Ex.P3 drawn by PW-13 who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. 18. The trial Court has erred in not noticing that there is absolutely no evidence spoken to by PW.2 who is the injured and therefore, the theory of the prosecution that accused assaulted PW.2 appears to be clouds of doubt. It is said that PW.2 was incapable of understanding the questions posed to him and incapable of giving answers to the question on his examination by the prosecutor before the Court and therefore, his evidence was dropped. Even there is no justification as to why PW.1 has not spoken about any assault committed by accused on PW.2. It is said that PW.2 was incapable of understanding the questions posed to him and incapable of giving answers to the question on his examination by the prosecutor before the Court and therefore, his evidence was dropped. Even there is no justification as to why PW.1 has not spoken about any assault committed by accused on PW.2. PW.1 states that as soon as accused assaulted him, he lost consciousness. But the question arises as to how he could have stated so in his complaint if he lost conscious as soon as he was assaulted. Even though the trial Court observes that the learned prosecutor should have treated this witness as hostile and could have brought out in the cross examination with regard to this discrepancy and that is not being done, but proceeds to convict the accused by holding that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it is to be noted here that the prosecution has not produced the X-ray, CT scan report and the case sheet pertaining to the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 and that the Doctor who treated PWs.1 and 2 has not been examined. It is a duty caste upon the IO who investigated the case to collect such documents. The trial Court has given a goby to such lapse on the part of the prosecution. 19. There is no dispute that the accused had caused simple hurt to PW-1 and grievous hurt to PW-2, but to prove the said guilt of the accused the prosecution has not produced any clinching evidence. Further, the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, in this appeal, keeping in view the grounds urged by the learned counsel being appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellant, it requires re-appreciation of the entire evidence as where the trial Court has misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to put forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence to probablize that the accused has caused injuries to PWs-1 and 2 by means of M.O.1 -Stone. Since the offences alleged against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused deserves for acquittal. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to put forth cogent, corroborative and acceptable evidence to probablize that the accused has caused injuries to PWs-1 and 2 by means of M.O.1 -Stone. Since the offences alleged against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused deserves for acquittal. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I have to proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.30/2010 dated 16.08.2010 is hereby set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences leveled against him. The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled. The fee of Sri R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellant is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Service Committee, in accordance with law.