Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 342 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. R. V. Rathnakara And Others

2020-02-05

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2020
JUDGMENT John Michael Cunha, J. - This appeal is directed against the divergent findings of the courts below. 2. Prosecution was launched against the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 4 alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 325, 448, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that there was ill-will between the complainant and accused No. 1 with regard to certain events that had taken place in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Davanagere, where both of them were working. In this background, it is alleged that on 28.10.2008 at 6.30 p.m., when the complainant returned home after his work and his wife and children had gone to his in-laws house on account of Deepavali festival, six persons came in a Honda City car bearing registration No. KA-17/M-8400, accused No. 1 kept watch outside; Accused Nos. 2 to 4 trespassed into the house of the complainant; Accused No. 2 abused the complainant in filthy language and gave a blow on the face of the complainant (PW-1) and other parts of the body. Accused No. 3 also hit him with fist on the stomach and on the left eye, due to which, he suffered severe injury and lost left eye; Accused No. 4 assaulted him with hands and thereafter all the accused went away from the spot. 4. The complainant narrated the incident to his immediate neighbour PW-8-Raju, who rang up to the wife of the complainant and on her arrival, he was taken to C.G. Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere. His statement was recorded in the hospital, based on which, FIR was registered against six persons. After investigation, charge sheet came to be laid only against four accused persons for the above offences. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses and got marked 11 documents as Exs-P1 to P11. During the examination of PW-1, two documents were confronted and the same were marked as Exs-D1 and D2. 5. On analyzing the evidence, the learned magistrate was of the opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted all the four accused persons under sections 323, 325, 448, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced accused Nos. 5. On analyzing the evidence, the learned magistrate was of the opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted all the four accused persons under sections 323, 325, 448, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced accused Nos. 2 to 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months for the offence punishable under section 448 r/w 34 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, accused No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under section 448 r/w 34 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 400/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days, accused Nos. 1 to 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w 34 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 6,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, accused No. 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w 34 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, accused Nos. 1 to 4 to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 504 r/w 34 IPC in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, accused Nos. 1 to 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 IPC and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants preferred Appeal Nos. 31/2015 and 32/2015 before the sessions Court and by the impugned judgment dated 19.04.2017, the sessions court set-aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court and consequently, acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the above offences. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants preferred Appeal Nos. 31/2015 and 32/2015 before the sessions Court and by the impugned judgment dated 19.04.2017, the sessions court set-aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court and consequently, acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the above offences. 7. The first appellate court on analyzing the above evidence found that the prosecution failed to cite any independent eyewitness to the incident; the testimony of the complainant/PW-1 suffers from inherent improbabilities and contradictions; that the evidence on record clearly discloses motive for false implication of the accused; even though accused were sent up for prosecution on the allegation that the alleged injuries were caused by the accused, yet the document marked through PW-1 viz., Ex-D1 clearly disclosed that the complainant himself had claimed compensation from Oriental Insurance company, wherein he had unequivocally stated that he sustained injuries in an accident. That apart, the first appellate Court further noted that there were serious discrepancies in the initial case set up by the prosecution, wherein the complainant had alleged that six persons had come to the spot, whereas, the investigating agency had sent up only four accused for trial. Based on these inconsistencies and unreliable evidence, the first appellate court accorded benefit of doubt and acquitted all the accused of the above offences. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State contends that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Ex-D2 does not disclose that the complainant had sustained injuries as stated by the prosecution. By the said document, the complainant has merely claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The recitals of the said document neither prove nor disapprove the case of the prosecution and therefore, the first appellate court has committed an error in placing reliance on Ex-D1 to come to the conclusion that the incident had not taken place as stated by PW-1. The first appellate court also failed to ascribe legal weight to the evidence of PW-1 who is an injured eyewitness; no corroboration is necessary for the testimony of an injured eyewitness; the fact that the complainant had sustained injuries has been corroborated by the wound certificate Ex-P11 and the evidence of PWs-11 and 12. Their testimony has not been controverted in the cross-examination. Their testimony has not been controverted in the cross-examination. The circumstances brought out in the evidence clearly indicate that the accused were ill-disposed towards the complainant. The prosecution has established a clear motive for commission of the above offences and under the said circumstances, the impugned judgment rendered by the first appellate court being contrary to the material on record is liable to be set-aside and the judgment of the trial court deserves to be restored. I have bestowed my careful thought to the submissions made at the Bar and have carefully scrutinized the material on record. 9. Though at the first blush, it looked that the prosecution has established its case by the evidence of the complainant, but on careful scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant, I find that the case of the prosecution suffers from inherent improbabilities and irreconcilable contradictions. The complainant has come up with a specific case that on account of ill-will between him and accused No. 1, all the accused persons came to his house and assaulted him with hands and during the occurrence, he suffered an injury to his eye and lost his eye. He has even gone to the extent of stating that during the occurrence, he sustained bleeding injuries and his clothes were stained with blood. But the investigating officer has unequivocally admitted in his evidence that no such traces of blood were found in the house of the complainant and no stains of blood were noted on the clothes of the complainant. If the prosecution had seized any of these material objects, the same would have lent corroboration to the testimony of the complainant to hold that the incident had taken place in the house of the complainant as stated by the complainant. In this background, if Ex-D1 is perused, in the said medical report, the complainant has stated that he sustained injuries in an accident. In the absence of any proof to show that the incident had taken place in the house of the complainant as stated in his evidence, the document submitted before a third party namely Oriental Insurance Company at an undisputed point of time requires to be accepted. Complainant has not disowned or disputed Ex. D1. In the absence of any proof to show that the incident had taken place in the house of the complainant as stated in his evidence, the document submitted before a third party namely Oriental Insurance Company at an undisputed point of time requires to be accepted. Complainant has not disowned or disputed Ex. D1. Though it is noted in the said wound certificate that on account of accident, the complainant had sustained loss of vision, the evidence of the complainant is that on account of injury, he lost his retina and his eye was replaced. But there are no medical records to show that due to alleged incident, he had lost his eye and in its place an artificial eye has been inserted. These circumstances completely demolish the veracity of the statement of the complainant (DW-1). 10. Further, the evidence adduced by the prosecution when analyzed in the backdrop of the other circumstances brought out in the evidence of the complainant, it goes to show that there was enmity between the complainant and accused No. 1. The evidence of PW-1 suggests that on the same date i.e., on 28.10.2008, an untoward incident had taken place in the office, in respect of which both parties had complained to the Manager and even though the manager persuaded both the parties to take back the complaints, accused No. 1 did not agree and his complaint was referred to the superior officers. Though supporting material is not produced in proof of these allegations, yet the testimony of PW-1 in this regard has not been countered in the cross-examination, thereby establishing that there was serious differences between accused No. 1 and the complainant. Under the said circumstances, possibility of the complainant implicating accused No. 1 in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. 11. According to the complainant, six persons had come in the car and he has narrated the overt-acts committed by four of the accused, but, except the testimony of the complainant, there is no corroborating evidence to show that accused Nos. 2 to 4 inflicted injuries on the complainant. There is absolutely no evidence to show that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had any motive or ill-will against the complainant. According to the prosecution, the motive for commission of the offence was ill-will against accused No. 1. The prosecution has examined immediate neighbours PWs-7 and 8. 2 to 4 inflicted injuries on the complainant. There is absolutely no evidence to show that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had any motive or ill-will against the complainant. According to the prosecution, the motive for commission of the offence was ill-will against accused No. 1. The prosecution has examined immediate neighbours PWs-7 and 8. No circumstances are brought out in their evidence to show the presence of accused Nos. 2 to 4 either at the spot or in the vicinity. Thus the case of the prosecution being beset with doubtful circumstances, the first appellate court was justified in according the benefit of doubt to the accused. 12. Even on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the first appellate court. Even otherwise, the instant appeal having been filed against the judgment of acquittal, since two views emanate from the evidence, it cannot be a reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. As the first appellate court has meticulously analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has arrived at a conclusion, which is based on legal evidence, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. As a result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.