IN THE HIGH Comm' 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGA§;{.3_§§*.E'»fi_vV
DATED THIS THE zcrrfi DAY 05* MAY
PRESENT
"ms 1-xownnm ma. JH§'i-'ICE m; .
mm Hozrnu: an.'
CRIMINAL APPEAL 525.2321 fi(§!f3jVL.'*V{A)
BETWEEN:
1 THE £jJ>é*"--:<A réT§§tVA9g*£;;<.A«"g
3Y%H_oh:AvAa_?<:1,tcE «
. H Q ...ApPm,AN'r.
(By sri§'%armm K;"§§&§R~!;iii£§:iATH. GOVERNMENT
?LEADER'*a_ X 4
Arm "
---»---»--'-.1-
' ,1' " Mate-M.A'I~:..s1IRRAwA NAIR"
'i~'.!A.;i{)'i2_,j'~.__..~
"1.%'R/;srm;<:rr." '
6 MAI-{FISH MADHAV.A_NAIK ' "
RIO V . ._
MAHI.N£.'£:-<Ht3£Ja§VA1£...__ _
!_I1TA;?A-K&NNAEsA ms%jRicrr;;
7 £IANLIh&.%;NT_H'lSUBI:%AVYY_A_--NAIK
mm; 36 YES,-~ ' '-
R/-O IKANI, *
MAH'mE+VH0NAvAR._'..'%~
_t_;1'rARA g<_A:s1NA:::A D!S'I'R!C'I'.
" '~ 3 - 'inrmnvgre s1Ir§'r;AvvA@s:mR:; NAIK
AGE; 41"~YRS,
_ '*.R;'Q E:A"LKUR,
%:10:\i;ywA;fe"TALuK
' _. * RESPONDENTS
% 7,_(By. ugzitths : ASHOK N NAYAK AND 81?! A. MAHESH,
e .AT3Vs-, I
T. ~C.RL.a. IS FILED U/S. 373(1) .5; (3) r;R.P.¢f:. £21′ THE
“–__”*SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HUMBLE
mzrm MAY are F’LEASF’J) To mezw’r uzmw: T0 FILFI AN
KAPPEAL AGAINST’ THE .JUI)GMEN’I’ mt 27.1o,2t)m
” PAS’-BEE} BY THE PRL. JMFCL, HONAVAR IN c:.c:.m.
301:3/99, ACQUFITING THE RESPONDEN’i”S–AC!CUSED
FOR mp: OFF’F3N(‘2F£~3 PIINISHARLFZ ms.
143,147,341,323,3%,5o6 R/W 149 IPC.
‘V the rank of the p:a_11:1r-‘_.s “hr.-.fo:n?. the-. trial
” “C’x)ti_1_r9:. aI*r.=;”a§.§ –
Hfinfiéppa Naik – PW-4 is :11 msitient of Mahjmt:-.,
VA Honavar, and is mskiing with his wife amcl
V’ childmng Nmam Hrmnappa Nail-is 3::m~in–iz-tw Manjxmath
This Criminal Appeal having been beam
for ordcxs avail coming on for pronouncement of__juu:1y;,*c:;i1::n1 ‘
this day, SARHAH’f’T.I., deiiw-mi the rntknm.ng:~– .. V. 4-
This :.=:pp¢:-.a1 by the is ”
judgement of acqtiittal _» .,_i£M,F,C,,
Honavar, in No.3!) VE.(),i3f.H)(1, wherein
respondent Nest’ 133 8 befozt the trial
Couzi havvy <1t':f.'ihe.E}:hargcs of having
V under Sections 143,
147, 3&1, with Scmfion 149 mat.
The; gisscntiai f’a<:_-.:t :§v'of Viifllfi case irxading up to this appeal
'Eh " It is the case of the proscctation that: Namyan
{PW9} is also awning land and Wail was being dug in the
land of his sonvirz-law: on ;??…'S.G2. I999. himself and his son-
indaw, afltr finishing the work near that Well were
accuscxi Nos.I to 8 of having committed the
ofl?:nces. in mspcct of which, chm'gc-sheet was _
the amused, AB the pltaded net. anti "
claimed to be tfied. The: pmscmttioicg at<::_ 1':$3i.
and got marked the-. doc1tmeni's'_Exs;VP1"'to pAj;ci'.*%
Nos. 1 to Statement of the 313
was mooztled. is one of
denial, evidence.
The trial contentions of the and thee kaxned
“€*.éc1:sod and appreciating the
oral on rcmrd. by its judgement
that the pmsccution baa £w1kxl’ to
the ac-cuacd of having oommittcxi the
unezlctr Secfions 143, 147, 341, 323,
E’ai’_)6_ i-trad with 149 mcz, and accottlingly,
the aczetlaed of the said Br.-sing aggrieved
the said juclgcment of acquittal, the State. has pmfcmxl
‘4 u this appeal.
3. We have heard the k-.a1’m:-xi High Clmurt
Crovmnmant Plcacicr appealing fer the. app:-.ikmt-State and
\:–>
rsg;’1%,}wé:a_nsvmr point No.2 by holding that ax:
A us thxvmgh the of PWs..1 to 5 and the
Worzisntcnts of thc documents got mark:-.d by the proacmztution
VV and 3-ubmittod that the: complainant and his son.-in-Law,
the learned counsel apmring for the a,c4:’.11scar1H.H ‘
rrrgmfi to the contentions urged, the poixms ttrét
our detczmjnation in this appeal A
1. Whether
pass:-d by the or for
interfe, _. in this éigiir-e:ttl?7′ W:
2. =-\Rhat.€r1d-ai§1j ?-
We answer ” fly: as
i?oin_t_V __ jtuigement of acquittal
passed by _§nég~ is jusijficd and am
not fiarrzmt in this appeal.
” “‘:’I3*;3int~I§o.2 “”” ” ‘V In View of ml: finding on poiflt
_ to be: dismissed as per the. .5113}
‘ og«::m ‘;:;r the. foBowi11g:-
Z I…e.a13:1¢:ad High Court Cnmmment Pkuadcr has
both of whom are injmtd in the incident as the
cvidcnot: of PW5, of the coszapzainam and 1=w3,%
the compkainant would clearly bring home. the .
acsceuscxi. The evidence of m lllfii?-‘ELI’ thai ‘4 ” =
PW9 hmi sustained gicvotis 3 1ga;:1;; _
sustained silnple injtuy and the.._pm§é=c;iii-on 1:42.53
to hiring home. the the trial Court
was not justificd in ”
S. 0:; th¢: ‘_nth§:r hand. ampmfing
for the that the jturlgemcnt
of zuquittéi is just1’fie::1 and the
evidencI:e_9£’t11e and his son-in–law (PW9)
and ‘E incuynsilstcnt and not mgexlt
~. civil and cziminat cases pcnditlg
b§twecn,’V4fh¢«. §t3mpkainant and the acwcrusx-1.1 and a fl.-wise
foisted against the aC(’11S-(Ed and the
‘V witnesses is also inconsistent mgaxtling the
x V’ of and under the cixmtmstancxzs, the
j u@_i géincnt of acquittal is jusfified and does not call for
T ” “i’Iii’¢:rfmt-.ncac in this appeal.
\;J~
. MO. N0:3.2 and 3 is 11:31: helpftxl to
the pmsacnt case as the mine has not
‘-»cxam’nie;j;%:. mport if} not produced to show that then: were
stains on thc said clothes worn by the iajutui.
-: 10:»
pirzsmutiean ta pmvc sciztuaz 9f M.0. No.1 :
v1rw’. ofthe facts elicited in his »’
3. W3 :3 a was M Em
mganzling of –
PW9 was waiting at and he: has
stated aocoxdingly in of MI).
N-os,2 and 3 the suggesti-an in his 011333-eétam Sign-rl. as pancha in
5i’i*Vi:=s_VtA’1;z.1’ti:.-»i:;’1″‘e:li~r=it4.’:*x.i in his amass:-examination
that was p1\’.’fp8.I’f_’.d at 11 gun.
Though the cu?irid:;-/not of smppofis scizum of M0. 1103.2
to chcmjm axamination and chemical
9. PW4 is the ccaaplainant in the case. PWS is
the wife of the complainant and PWs.6 and 7 accmtiing to
the prosecution. an: independent eye-witncames. However,
13913.6 and 7 have not stlpported the of the-.
\;~/”
“1, Abrasion 1 “x 5’2″onmrthe. right A’
2. Tcndcmcsas over the L)ac=k’;—-. A
3. Tcndcmcss over the of
She has further dcposgd PW9-
Ma13J1’13J.ath ‘I’h1:nm’ the followm g
i13jur’n.-.:s and zxx:on1ing3y.”‘h¥i;; ocrtifiaite as
per Ex,P’7:-
“”” ‘ “x 1″ x 952” over the
ER Leg; T A %
“2, 1″): ea” 3; aa” over the
~. A’
wound #12″ x ‘ff’ 1: W’ ovrsr
‘V ‘A g below the wound M.O.. No.1,
* Upptzr 1/3 of the left leg swollen;
Llppcr 113 ofthc am Leg swollen;
6. Lacrzmtcd wound 1 ” X I” x 9’4″ «tum.-.r
” left leg; Bone! picccs have come: cm of the
7, Movcmcnf of the. left leg is painful,
Upper end of the right leg bones fiacttut P *’
She has further deposed in last evident: that the injtuics
mentioned in Ex.P7 ootlld be caused by assault with
hammer — MI). No.1 and zwmrdingly, she has fixmished
‘\¢)=–
-: T31-
opinicm as per Ex.P3. It is clictitcd in the 1 ”
of mm that she made enquiry v:ith_m9″ iiésé1′..h’¢;A,%A V’
susta:inc:d. injury and the same
Ex.P7. Thr: mjtxid ” L’
93115::-.v;l if a p¢:rI\5u:m tljjlls 0.1.1′ :3 senricc.
and apart from the ‘Ex_.VP1. them war:
no injurics on this not obtain any about the period wafigamm Hospital, She has nfit to fiactttzt: as " elicited in her cross»
exaxnjiszatfivnnéatixafflic ifijjtfiies mentioned in Exs.P6 and P7′
‘ V. ‘oo1ii<:ia.n5:ii= ham: be»e.:Vfim'<':4..=;11Ise2::! by 35881131 with a club. It is
1_~.m% gfizapxtxekifion of cvitjencxz of PW10 and the
and P7, wvmnd mnifimtcs issued by
th;+¢%"wm:n she examined PW4 on 2502,1999, $21:
"'L:f§;:111:§.ci"A_'t11e injtmlcs note-xi in Ex*P6 and aha fomxd injuries on
..~h.;=. may of Manjunath-PW9 and am». has opined as per
'4 EXEPS that the injitrkzs could be csauscd by iron
hammer. It is clear from the wound certificates -» Efxs,P6
and P'? that history of injury is awn as assault. It is not
mentioned as to who assautted PW6 or PW? and though
\,,:~.
PWIO has stated in 111:: that she mafia ‘
with the injrntxi as to how they had. »zs11stainé.£i’ it’ V x
is ckar fmm Exs.P’6 and F’? that A-tit’
not zmtntioned in Ex:s.P6
12, PW4 £3 tht3thj_s He hm;
dcposexl in his {he date.-. of the
incidcnt, after
finishing Vthey were returning
to at about 6 13,311.,
when f;!:ii5Y”$’#?’€I;t one furirmg fmm the Well,
all the tht.-Am and mttsci No.4 –
Haztmmanth Stabbayya Nail: –
hjxn and fcߢ_=:d him on the giotmci
“at accruscd No.1 —- Naxagran Subbayya Nail:
g aaszifiltcifi. the hammer on the legs of Manjuzmth WW9}
K and 0:: hearing his cry. Ananth Vasudema
: (Pw6), Ramachandra Nmayzma Naik (PW?) and
T ” (PW8), son of the complainant camt: to the spot
A. and cm setixag them. .’F£(‘:(‘–lI8E5d ran away fmm the spot
thmatening that they wrmki not it-ave. them. Inj1311:d—-PW9
was shiiicd to the Hospital. He to-:31; tmatment in
\Fx}>.
” V. ‘”1115 V” th€tV’m;*.Al11b and pushed him. Nmayan
No.4 caught hold of his neck and
and all the: M1131;-d assaultexl PWIO with
Hmtunantha Subba Nail; ~ a<:=ct_1sex:E No.7 assatttted
V' a0n.~i11-law – Manjunath with imn h:.'i.!I1]31€I', Ha: czmnot
'4 tell the number of timcs each of the acc.11scd assaulted his
-:15»
Hormvar hospitai. He has sustained injtuy
Manjunath was shifted to K 2
for further tmatment mi he
injmics. PW4 has further ziaok ” T’
treatment for one moqth with
Manjtmath at the I-Ir.vr.-‘;z’;.r.{tca.1… lodged the
complaint as No.1 as the
hammer thgfiotrm which PW9
was wcag-glig The other :..m<:r1.zscad
I PW9. It is clitzitcd in his
cxtzss-cxA€¥1I§iili1ti¢§3:a.. actcrtlsaexi were holding clubs.
.Acc11s_mi _No.–'-'ix Ronnmwa Naik assmzltod him on
his mm: to his rescue. and all the M-cttasexi
son~–in~kzw, It is further elicited that the other acmlacd
have also assattltcxi him. There is paddy Land on the
side of the mad, The mad is in the dilrxstion of East to
\r5<
-: I6 :-
West and hens: of accused N0?’ is near
oflhucc and house of the. other ac’–C.’:’£Sv’~E1.–‘5 is :93: ¢ _tl,cié:
and the other accused are not _ It. ‘is ._
elicited in his cIoss~cxamiua3u7§n..§hatA’t’t ”
against him and PW thgy a§é3au!tex;1i:1cx:11sczi
N«;s.5 and the smnc and in that
case. himself. mg an: the
.-aoceuscxzi. H!-‘.– {ifimpiaints filed by
them aga’1’viI:§s.1:.V ~ff1r1h4-.-.r elicited in his
dispute mgarciing flow of
water béfg-qwfitn and the accused have
obtai_n-‘::r1_:.1 ‘vorficr fitam the Cozm and it is irlit:
. ‘thfaf xa of have beam filed against the
aé;;1g§.ea. the said dispute.
1″3,L’1L PVJ9–Manju.uath is the sozzvin-law of PW4. He
in his t11cr-in-
law wv:.I!: coming on Ikini road near the Well and all the
amusmi restrained thcm and gacscusxnd No.6–Mahesh
Macihava N.-ai}; abtlsed 11$ fathc:r–iI1-law (PW4) and «:2-alight
hold of hm neck and pushed hiln to the gmmd and when
\,»/”‘
33..
Accused No.1. He has denied the
doposing tlttlscly against the to
14. PW5 is tho wife
she has dopos-ed in hey: cx.tn1;i;1oifi<3:I4»i;;~cl.§iéfv£ha!:§ on the
date of the incidcnt, LPW4) and their
son-in-law (PW£'9_}*vef_e.e11c: firm mishing
the work all the accused
Stxbmafim came and caught hold of the
neck of him to the mound and
her s§:afi–in-kfiv was pusher! by ac-c1.1:su;-azl No.1-
Noik and he assaulted on the logs of
tho hammer. She: cnod. ' – and on hcam1' g
"cry, Vamuicv Naik and her son – Lakeahman
(Ewe; ézmic to that spot and they snatched the ohlbs which
V' were holding. Ac-mtaexci thneatenod "them whik:
away from the spot. She. has idcntificui MI). No.1 as
the hammer which her son-in.-Jaw was hokiing and MI),
N032 and 3 as the clothr.-.3 which her son-in-Law was
wcming at the time of the incident. She has filrthcr
dcposed that when Police coma:-., she showed the: of
K)»
the evidence: of PWs.4 am} 9 and. hctr ~ 3
furthezr SIIOW that ha: son – Lakshman (PW8) jx M
spot after she cr’r.-d and wherefore. fiziéi tfizicxsgctt; E31523
mic out the: possibility of PW8 VV
incident, Further, it is clear
cross-cmammation thiiif ‘fie:-..xj’, scifine-Aof’
was shown by her ttzsfltgrl’ same is in
‘gzudhcbayaltt’,:.w’35;ic%§1 of P’Ws.4
and 9 and the 1
‘ fhc. son of the complainant-
PW4 and ” stated in his cxam;inat1’on–in-
V. ‘_ chif:f3.:thz=§t on fl§méng__fl:;e cry. he went to the spot and saw
‘t1V1.dt, __mother and bmtl1cr–in~lmv Le… “V3.4. S
asaauitbd by the acxztttstxi. Aeolian.-1:1 No.1
-V – éutnbtmygm Nazi]: asesatfltcsd his bmthcr-indm
M’ ” ‘ (PW?) 5:; both Km legs. Acctlsed No.6-Mahcsh Madhava
.’ %:.1lt¢.-d his Jfiathcr. ‘The other accmscd
T “‘;:#d.{-zrwaultinxg his father. He: snatched the hammer which
Namyan Subbayya Naik (accused No.8) was hokling and he
pacified the quarrel, Accused thxtatcnai them and went
away from the spot, It is in his cmss-cxamination
‘\3,’\
w-Q answer Point N01 by holding
judgement of afiquittal passed by the izs” * _
and does ncrt call for interfertncee in this 3 ‘«
17. mm No.2: In View o£%m§r ansvéer p0 i11t
No.1, we hold that the and
accordingly. pass the ‘ V’ V
The appcai of acquittal
pasau.-sci by tI§.V¢.:-. Hon.-Ivar. in (LG,
No.3fJ15/ glam.-4
Sd/–
Iudge
Sd/-.__%
Iuéqa