Irappa Dundappa Karadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2008

 

IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARN§TAK%

CIRCUET BENCH AT DHARWAD

BATES THIS THE Tm DAX OF JULY 2Qg§ af w

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT:cg"R;s.9AcHaéPURE:«I

CRIMINAL A?PEAL No.518 of 2G@3i :
BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Erappa DundapfiafiKa£éHi;  7Tn
R99: major; '7~ ' 5V'." 
O00: Agril.,

2. Sri,,§a1a@pa §§ndapp& Kéradi}
Age: majQr;}V_ ,".aa '
Gcc:"Aqrilr,'f:

3. Sri. Nihgappé 3$hfla§fia Karadi,
Age:,majGi,' ' F
Gog: RgriE.;a  V .m APPELLANT/$
A'A1 t§v3--afe r/0. Hanjanatti,
"Dist;m$el§§§m.

E .

 ?§y S:;{ $$hok R.Kalyana Shetty, Adv.]

V _  AND:

éaffie State of Karnataka,
"_Rep».By its State Public Prosecutor,
u = Advocate General's Office,
'",High Court Buildings,
V_Bangalcre. m RESPQNBENT/S

[By Sri. P.H.G0tkhinfii, BCG?.}

-£4:-i'



 

2

This Cr}. Appeal is filed under Sectientg374{2)
Cr.P.C., by the Advocate for the appeilant{eVegé;nst

the Judgment dt. ?.3.2OG3 passed by the ,p}eI,j Fast

Track Court and Addl. S.J., Betgaum,.ie"S}CQ%Ne,13/97;I

convicting the appeilantwaccueede Nell' ta "3» fey }the_V:

effence p/UXSS. 436 and E64 r/fi,t3§ IPC end seeteectng
them to undergo R.I. fer } years and te pay tinexbf
Rs.2,0GG/- each and. E.D.Qtktb _under@e'5SJ:. for one
month for an offence pfuf§Sge£§€erfwQ See. 3% EPC.,
further sentencing tfiee-teflfipdetgetfiti. for one year

fez an offence p/u/S$,H50é't/Q.tSee§§34 ;PC. Both the

sentences are ta runicepcurrefitiyj f
This C:1;eappéa1_b¢m:g§ 03 for Final Hearing this

day, the Coefit¢deiiveted_the following:

The eppellentee"heye challenged their conviction

_ and eefitence fat the Offence under Sectiens 436 and

5¢4._},'w'Li3_§1"-.._3:9c on a trial held by the Fast Track

Ceutt etvfielgeufi.

"9. {M Sees unneceeearyt details, the preeecution

;..

."nVe:sioe'ufifol&e& éuring the trial is as under:





 

record, the Triai Cauzt convicted the appeiiafits for

the offence ufider Sections £36 aad Sflé I/wtwfié IF? and

sentenced them ix: undergo different_im§risQhm@et*fQr_

each Qf the offence and to pay thé Si§e;'géggri@§eé by'

the conviction and the jsentencé, theg fiCCu3edr have

approached this Court in appéal.

3. I hav@ heaffi §he,,lea:fi€dT counsel fer the
appellant and aiso the leazfied Sdvebfimént Plaader.

é. Th§'p§ini_thfit a§iaéS"fér my conaifieratian

Whethéf tag cénvictien and sentence of

("T
C3'
(D

'*gappel1afifi3.F%fOr the offence under
S-'3s.c?:ifi':£._ 43V6V"afi-d "594 2:/w. 34 ms is iliegal

_ End perver§@? ..... Mn

 *u5" *lhri$ the contention of the laarneé counsel

far fifie agpeifiants that there is delay of 10 hours in

--i3dg§hg' than camplaint and the incident ocsurred at

'V1.09, a.fi. in the midnight and except P.%s.1 ané 3,

_ thefe are as ether witnesses ta Suppwxt the version of

'thé prbsecution. He further fiubmits that P.Ws.1 and 3

"a:e the persons interested and' the deiay was



6

deiihetate and taken to disadvantage for iepiieating
the appellants in the crime. It ie~ aieeg his
ceetehtiee that there was an RgreemehtThefri$aie'Eahe%k
that thete was a dispute for the eeeeifieihertermaheem
of the contract. He submits that the eetive ie Ewe;
edged weapee and it 5aa§.b@éh. miehseei be the
complainant to impiicate ,the®-appeiiahte-/ On these
grounds he has seu§ht'W_fierufiheetting aside the

conviction.

6. fheeieaihedjeeteremeet Pieader submits that
though the witheeSee--§}@a,1 and 3 are the interested
witnesses; the eerutieg of their evidence reveals the

occurrence ef itheh ieciaeht in the night. He further

'euhmite ehat the aeeusee were intending te oust the

eeepiaihaet age his family members item the_land and

as it was met possible, the accused in furtherance ef

'the eomeenv inteetion, went to the hut of the

vieemeiainaht in the night and after a threat, eet fire

»teljthe hut by using the meteh stick. In the

geireumstences, he submits that the Trial Court ee

mpreper appreciation of the evidence eh record hae Come

to a right conclusion in convicting the accused.
I



3]

reasonable doubt. There is a lehg way Wtsézy the

prosecution has to pass in between 'mayf aha }eust'.

Ehough the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3_;utbahiises"theg

possibility of occurrence oft the giDCidEfit¢x'3%' thee

incident has to be proved beyond reasohahie°aeubt{uE
think that the evidence of %;Ws.i aflfih3iit%eif is not
sufficient to bring heme thé"¢§;it of the aocused. It
may be that some persohs must hate set the fire and on
the next day, the ooasiaiht is iougeu anticipating the
probabilities sf the gnoiaehfi E? the accused in View
of the _long#stah§ina 'aispute_ between P.W.1 and the
accusedia ;'the ftact" that: none of the independent

witnesses ithough "cinea; by the prosecution have not

supported the case, raises some doubt with regard to

;gVthe_ioem§iioity' of the accused in the crime. The

probabiiity of roping the accused in the crime canaot

be Aoyer_»ruieo in View of the delay' in lodging the

Z~%_eomplaint: 30, taking into consideration ail these

ix biroumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial

ii.lifeurt committed iiiegaiity' in accepting the evidence

itof P.Ws.1 and 3 alone for the conviction of the

appellants. { fl

 



 

'a Tb;s'aspe¢t

12

22. The Trial Court has observed in pe:a\26 of

the Juegment, as regard to the yeriatiensV end

omissions of the witnesses. l%eughiltwébset$ed_thatfi

the omissiees and variations are natural enefbefihd te'"

occur, but it failed 'fie fiete Vthetaeggeept _%he
interested versiee of P.§s¢l' and hfiifl so levidence is
available on record tetaceeetean§Wcpnfitfi the version
of these two witnesses;  lh that Qiew of the matter,
though the T;iel?Codttgeeee§$e§_fi§§ version of P.Ws.l

3;,

and 3, as the seielwithesses are intezested personsand
as the_inciéent has taken plate during the night and
in View of'the<fe¢t,taat there is more than 10 hours

delay' in 'ledgifig_ the fleomplaint, the possibility of

_ has not been taken into consideration by
the Etialkecfiitz In the circumstances, I am of the

opinlee that the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court

i".,eQnvictihg? the appellants is illegal and perverse.

"'_Heh;e I answer the abeve peiet in the affirmative and

l*_ipreeeed to pass the follewing:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The cenvictioe and

sentence of the apyellants for the offence under

ii

13

Sections 436 and 50% r/w. 34 ZPC is set a3ié§L ?hey

are acquitted of the charges leveled. §§aifi3§ ufihem.

?he bail bands stand cancelled and “thé .fifie if *afiyk

deposited shall be refunded.

Judge

Ksm* 3. J”%_ ~V