1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 PRESENT THE I-ION'BLE MR.(,I[]ST]CE V Cr SABHAHIT Rr THE HON'BLE MR'.JUS'I'fé';E L NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 of 2oo1(A) Between: 1 THE STATE OF' KARNATAKA BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION BANGALORE APPELLANT (RV QRIANAND 1*' NAVAI.-AG! MA'T'T-I-ICGF') AND: 1 NARAYANA @ ADENARAYAN s/o NAGAYYA 21 YRS R [A NO.158 A K COLONY KORP.l\JLA.NGALA BANGALORE 3;. 2 SRINIVASA s/0 NAGAYYA 24 ms R/A No. 158 A K. COLONY KORAMANGALA BANGALORE RESPONDENTS (BY SRIMUNIBYREGOWDA FOR R2) /5» 2 CRL.A. FILED U/S. 378(1) 81. (3) CR.P.C. BY THE SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAYBE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVETO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT. 8.12.2000 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSlONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN S.C.NG.290j'98. ACQUITFING TI-I - RESP-NDEN-._-ACCIJSED FORT!-IE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U_IS. 143, 147, 148,307 R] W 149 IPC, AND THE APPELLANT-STATE PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE. an. «I. nn 5 -.14 4 4- JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated
8/12/2000 passed in SC No.290/98 on the file of the 10th
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City acquitting
the respondents of the offences punishable under Section 143,
2. The case of the prosecution in ‘ori’i’ is as i’olI”Ws:
PW–8 has made a complaint on 17/7/1997 at 23-50 p.111.
complaining that at about 8-30 p.In. when PW-8 and PW–9 were
sitting in front of their factory. There was a galata nearby. PW–8
went and pacified the persons. 10 minutes thereafter, Narayana–
“{
‘1
3
Accused No.1, Srinivasa Accused No.2 and other three persons
came with Iron rod and clubs and assaulted the complainant with
2. 011 t.-e basis of Le s_i_ complaint, case w_s -eg1__t-_ed fly
‘I”1|”!’ P’? -_._ I”1______ ‘RT- (‘\f\€} If\”.7 I _’I..__._J.’ ‘I”\..’I_.._.. §A….J…….. A..Q….. ASL…
KW”! I. \.;I (7 NO 45UO[‘Jl nuuguur I’ 11 U D 1. l”LlLC-‘1 Ll].
investigation PW~ 10 has submitted charge sheet.
”3 ‘I’1’|£I_ ‘7’I~-it-J1 f’n11I~’I- on 1-va-rn hnvnn fnr
S-Jv \./u Lima
1. J–I-Kl L 1- I91 LI-I. L 1.1 Cllli-[.1 EU l.\J.I. 1|-‘o.l.J.\.¢ I.’al.l\IL\JI’D3Dl.I.\.r|.
offences. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution has examined rw’-1 t’ “W-10 af’ g’t
marked Ex.P1 to P8. M0~1 to 5 were produced. On behalf of the
respondents none were examined. However. Ex.D1 85 D2 were got
marked in the evidence of HIV-9.
5. The Trial Court on appreciating the materials on record
has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment of
acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.
at
1
4
6. We have heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned
1
.. “pt. AAAAA on-naanonzxao-I , 1.-u-…-I1.” 1-541. ‘ ‘In-um-u 1-. ‘Inn 1-14’ 1–
rugu uuuu. %vt:11uu<:u'1'. P1 um tuun ' * " " ' ' '"" "f
as u igu L11 deposition u
the witnesses and contents of the documents and submitted that
the materials placed by the prosecution clearly bring home the
guilt of the accused. On the contrary. the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that there are material contradictions in the
__ –9 and rest of the
s
m
E
'3?
‘:s
19..
E
«-9.
T’
D
in
Amman. -nun
and PW-9 is untrustworthy and therefore there is absolutely no
material placed by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the
accused. Therefore, he submits that this is not a case where this
Court could interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal
7. The points that arise for our determination in this appeal
(ii Whether the judgment and order passed by the Trial
Court calls for interference in this appeal?
{ii} W .a o der?
Our answers to the above points are as follows:
. cint No.1 – In the negative
Punt No 2 – As per the final erder.
8. PW-1 is PC No.7697 of Adugodi Police Station. He has
stated in his evidence that he was deputed to apprehend accused
No.1 and he submitted that he could not apprehend him. PW-2 is
an a..eged .y..1.KJL.ness t. t-.e inciwent 13.1 We has not supported the
n.. …J. ._…J .1.
case of the prosecution anu tnrne “””””‘” Notnin” could he
CL
5
E
E
elicited in his cross–examination by the learned Public Prosecutor.
PW-3 is the doctor who treated the complainant and issued the
wound certificate Ex.P3. PW–4 is a witness to the Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4. PW-5 is PC No.6509 of Chamarajpet Police Station who
-pprehended accused No.1 8:. 2. PW-6 is PC 5879 who carried
complaint, registered the case and sent F I R. PW-8 is the
complainant and PW-9 is an alleged eyewitness. PW-10 is P S I of
Adugodi Police station and the Investigating Oflicer in the case.
9. Therefore, the prosecution mainly relies upon deposition of
PW-_8 the complainant and the alleged eyewitness PW-9.
I
‘T
.4
10. PW-8 has stated in his deposition that on 19/7/1997 at
–vs 4-I-i4-|.1na. II”!!! (‘I
0 on ..
o-ou y.1.u. u1.Uu;:- war: a'”*” “°’é’L1″h” “”‘ fact
mm 1*’, WW7 1’IT1’l’IC-“1
£1′)! vIr.u.I. u. u.
013
pacified. About 10 minutes later accused No.1 on 2 came with iron
rod and clubs and assaulted him. Accused No.1 assaulted him
with iron rod and accused No.2 65 another assaulted him with
clubs. He has stated that Srinivas. accused No.2 and one Shivu
a._sa1_1_1ted h@ with clubs. Thereafter his brother came to the spot.
PW-8 has stated that he has narrated the incident to the poiice as
per Ex.P6. Butin the cross–exaInination he has stated that on his
behalf his brother narrated the incident to the police. He has
further deposed about the police coming to the spot, collecting iron
_1_rt.her admitted in his
5:’.
. HE’S 113.-_
0
cross-examination u t 11 d
No.1, and also accused No.2 Srinivas. He became unconscious
after sustaining blow on his head and other parts of the body. This
Witness has stated in his chief examination that his brother had
come to the spot and his brother and friend Umesh [PW-9) took
7
have stated that they did not know the name of the accused.
According to them Nagaraj brother of PW-8 narrated the incident to
.
the nohce. The c ore, t. —
Ci-I-J.\J t]
not an eye witness giving the parti’u1ars or i 1 accused persons
«-5
when both the complainant and PW-9 were unaware of names of
the accused. This would probabalize the defence that there was an
ill will between the accused persons and Nagaraj and because of
that reason a false complaint is filed against the accused. PW s-8
and 9 save also stated tua. spa. . now the accused omers also
assaulted. The evidence of P”W”s-8 Br. 9 is not consistent and cogent
in material particulars. There are no other independent witnesses
to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore. the evidence of
PWs.-8 82. 9 cannot be solely relied upon to connect the accused
with the offence alleged against them. The prosecution has failed
+ ‘+ 1’1
” prove its case ueyond reasonable doubt.
11. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on
t o ot cans for our in”rference in uu appeal.
Accordingly, we answer the point No.1.
12. In view of our finding on Point No.1, we pass the
following:
I”\ ‘l”\ 1″”\ ‘l”_’\”l”‘\
kJt(LJtLI<
Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated
0f rlrl-i nhn1(",1' r
"w'u'v'"4' W/LBJ
Cfi
8,'12/2000 in S ..o.290,!,8 on the 111
('1
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is hereby coflrmed.
akd*