IN THE HIGH COURT 01+' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KSREEDHAR RAQ
AND V .
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.V. 1:
CRL.A. NO. 1675 2007 V'
BETWEI3N:» 1
State of Karnataka,
BY Jelyapura Police: Station. 'V
' Appellant
[By Sri G. Bhavani Singh, SPP)_._._.
AND:--
S/0.= Nin '
Aged 19 y'eaVrs,V' V. .. '
2. V.Ninge4§'Gw <:la;..v" -
S, 8/ late Chiélgkathammaiah,
V'Ag-ad years} "" "
3; GM'a1_jija;"
._ «S"/70V."_'N'iI1g€%é;OWda.
' Aged 'years,
-- ' ,4. Rgfihnamma,
WV/'O. Ningegowda.
" VT {Aged 48 years,
Ail are Agriculturists,
A1] are 1'/at Horohafli Viflage,
Jayapura Hobli,
Mysore Taluk.
I Respondents
{By Sri P. Nataraju. Advocate)
This Cr1.A. is filed U/s.378(1) [3] of Cr.P.C. by the
State RP. for the State praying that this Honfble Cou.1*t*~–rnay
be pleased to grant leave to file an appeal agai.nst the
judgment dated 23.06.2007 in S.C.No.43/2006 on.the’fi1=3 of
the P.()., F’I’C~I, Mysore — acquitting V. f * –._ __”t1*-5′ _
respondents/accused for the offence punishab1e,’Uy/’s.30’d7_”i
r/W. Sec.34 of IPC. The appellant/state pray..’:’that.cVabove 2
order may be set aside.
This appeal coming for hearing.yonA.A this ._
delivered the following:
Junensmg
This appeal is fi1e’fd-by t_heStat_cpciiallengingllvthe order
of acquittal dated the Presiding
Officerg’v._AFast Mysore in S.C.No.43/2006
acquittingllthéelResp_oln01ent_”_.Nos.1 to 4 of the offence U/s.30’7
_ r/w,._%:$ec’.34 of”iP(:. According to the prosecution case, on
6.45 p.rn. in front of the house of
d’Acc’u__sed”Ndo.2,g;the accused persons in furtherance of their
corrirnon.f.iritvention assaulted CW2 — Chikkatayarnma with a
stone and caused grievous injuries and therefore, the
i._proseeution alleged that they have attempted to cause the
VA
death by the said act and therefore, they are guilty,-.r)_f the
offence U/s.30′? I’/W. Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution in order to proveits case has ._
examined in all 14 witnesses and:go»tfI’na.rked’i
and produced M.O.1 to l\/I.O.6p, The defence of’:a’ccusied”isl’*g’
one of total denial. After heari,rig’~i,the “p1*o_se’e1i’=’:ioVr1;’ the
defence, the learned pleavsleclvto acquit
the respondents of allllalthe against them
holding that the ‘hhprobable. Hence,
this appeal
H f if this case has been filed by PW3
— Papego*a(da_. VPWvI5r;~I.\l:.”i*2ainanaik was a Senior Medical
Officer ‘at Hospit’al;llMysore. He has stated that on
” _18_0:tfj2E20_{}5 at about”& l0 p.m., he has examined CW2 (PW5)
and I°oi1nd_.tu}C..e_injuries, one bleeding injury on her forehead
andp_anothere:i1i1;}i::11ry on her lips and she has suffered fracture
‘quof forehead and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P1.
if ‘ — PW2 — Kalaiah is the signatory to the mahazar —
}53xs.P3 and P4. He has also stated that the injured
a»
%
Chikkathayarnma had sustained injuries on her face and her
face was crushed. I\/1.0.3 and M.O.4 are the cloths and M.O.5
and M.O.6 are the sample and bloodstained mud recovered
in this case at the scene of offence.
5. PW3 –» Papegowda is the complainantfid”i~§1V¢;..j3é1s__ ‘* _
stated that he knows PW5 for about 6 years it
to the date of the incident. At about16.3oi.’p.jm”; ;,_S{oAn1e4qi1’aii’re1:c I
was taking piace in front of the house*of
When he went near and came otit.:of his he that
the Accused No.2 was acsdking to assault PW5
by putting stone on her face.’t-Accused Ixioiii-».1_ivfted a size stone
and assau1t.ed on her face and she has
sustained injurievsxondéher and teeth. All the 4 accused
_ persotiéjs then ranfléawag-‘ from the scene of occurrence.
in Therefore: heinformed the Jayapura Police Station. At about
the spot and PW5 was taken to the
‘Poiicé~..5tation;”‘:In the Police Station, he has explained the
“which is marked as per Ex.P.5. He has further
.sta_ted the chief examination that Accused No}. had
“p1.1Si’l€d PW5 on the ground and thereafter put a size stone
-.
//7
on her face and the blood started oozing out from her face on
the spot itself. He has identified 1VI.O.1 — stone
Accused No.1 for causing injury to PW5.
6. PW-4 — Rangadhamaiah isffthe if if
— spot mahazar.
7. PW5 — Chikkathayarmna is the “this * L’
case. She has stated that Accyu.sVed._i\io.2 “her husband’s
elder brother and first Accu.sed of third accused
and fourth accused is the”‘wife accused. About one
year prior toyher byeforemthe Court, she has
stated all gathered near the house of
Ningegoyvda” and.__.tlfe3rltV’i1avepushed her down and the
Accused No.2’ instigated other accused to murder her by
” sax stone onvfllher body. The first accused thereafter
_l_ifte.d ‘a put on her face. Her teeth got cut and she
started on her forehead and face. Thereafter, she
‘lost her consciousness. When she regained consciousness,
{“5h§’was in KR. Hospital, Mysore. She has identified the
l stone as well as the persons who have assaulted her.
vs.
/%
8. PW6 ~ Manu is a boy aged about 14 years___ who
has been examined as an eyewitness. PW5 is his mothe”r,ll~ie
has stated that all the four accused pushed his .
and the first accused lifted a stone kills
his mother. He dropped the stoneion l1’er:’face.
sustained injuries. Thereaften the accused ran” away from
the spot.
9. PW?’ -~» Veniidl-“3sh*«_l: is;Vi_:a!r1i)lT_I=}1i°..AIi”*V§bIitI1eSS who has
also corroborated__the eAVi.de1fice.’lof and other 8
witnesses. Constable of
relevant time. He has
visited ” and taken PW5 to
K.R.Hospitall.4″PW9-54’Moharhmed Rafi is the Police Constable
J«ayapu’ra’«VPolice Station who has carried the
_.§m.i¢ies to FSL, Bangalore.
10.: . *PW1O – Harish Kumar is the Constable who has
..,ut1*a.nsmitted the FIR to the JMFC Court on 18.02.2005 at 9
“l3W1l – Gopala is the Retd. Sub-Inspector during the
relevant period at Jayapura Police Station. He has recorded
‘ ‘ “in this’ Case. A. t
the statement of PW3 at about 8.15 pm. and registered it as
Crime No.8 / 2005. thereafter, sent the FIR to the Court.
11. PW12 — Thimmegowda is a witness to the seizure
of M.Os.2 to 4 as per Ex.P.4. PW13 W Basavaraju is4.an’Qther
eyewitness. He has also supported the
prosecution. He has further identified MD. I «stoilflev used it
Accused No.1 to assault PW5.
12. PW14 W Gopalaltrishna his .__the1V-?{‘oiice’*”S:ub– ” ‘
Inspector of Jayapura Police A.StaAtio_n”–»..durinAgvthegreievant
period. He has stated of PW5 to the
hospitaiivandpd thveastaternent. Thereafter, conducted
investigation” in’ finally filed charge sheet
againstthe persons after receipt of the documents
the evidence of these witnesses the
V _ learned Esessvions Judge has found that the evidence adduced
not sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the
‘cha’rges. Hence. he acquitted the respondents/ accused.
14. Heard Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned SPP.._and
Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel for the respondentse.:.f”‘ifh’eu
learned SP? submits that the evidence of PW3, _§'”\}V5 ‘
read with the allegation in the complaint “the by
certificate clearly establishes the guilt of_”Aelculsed’
2 for having caused grievous w:_};ju_ry on-the .P’v’V5.
Hence, he submits that Accus_eud.eNoes.1 “an.diV’_2 _i§nay be
convicted for the offencels’–.c.hargled them.
15. Sri pp vfl/[ufeialthe respondents
submits that t[li_e does not inspire
C0I1fid€I1_C”3«–e0Ili’Tll€;»’:’i})ind–j:o1€lthe”**CVotirt and the size stone
which is:7..alleg’edl used cannot be lifted by one
person. henCe_, the easeof prosecution is improbable that
Accused No.1 ha’s…llifted. the stone and dropped on PW5.
in he that the order of acquittal does not suffer
fr’or_n”l’any”‘illegality'”or impropriety. Hence, he prays that the
V’ _ appeal may .be”‘dismissed.
After having gone through the evidence of the
_p__””.prosecution witnesses and also the defence taken by the
accused before the Court and the documents marked in the
case and on reappreciation of the evidence on record, we
hold that the fact that Accused No.1 dropping a size stone —
M.O.1 on PW5 on the date of the incident is proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The
PW6 and PW? who are eyewitnesses has fully it
the evidence of PW5 — the injured in.-ri;his– case. ‘laverment”–VA
in the complaint also corroborated
by the prosecution. The prosecution has furthe1’.jestai’3lished
that Accused No.2 who is the or Accused has
instigated Accused No.1 to i.e., to lift the
stone and Therefore, both Accused Nos.1
and 2 arelieid liab_leA:.forVtheinjuries caused on PW5. PW1 –
Doctorhas stated’that.the”:injuries on PW5 are grievous in
an-:1 11.1 viewvvlofhthe weapon — M.O.1 used for the
Aoifffence, Accused Nos..l and 2 are held guilty
of.theoffencelilybiz/s.326 1″/w. Sec.34 of IPC. In so far as the
“sentence is concerned. it is submitted that Accused No.2 is
“ageVdl”about 68 years as of now. Therefore, leniency may be
to accused No.2. It is further submitted that Accused
30
No.1 was in custody for about 6 months as under.__tria1
prisoner and the period so undergone be set off aga_i’n.st–._the
sentence to be awarded for the offence committed ~
Having regard to the seriousness of_th.e__offence the’_’fact_
that PW5 is unarmed women, the act ‘Nos. Vei’11dvCll§_:
cannot be lightly brushed aside.’«LInder’-these ciircujmstancesi, A’
we hold that the sentence of for a
period of 6 months is ad_e’;;uafte Accused No.1
and a period of 3 Amonthvsri for Accused
No.2 would opfvieiv of the old age of
Accused
…. .. ,
appeal
The Ac’cL1_&:’§edw.No..1- Accused No.2 are convicted for
“vV”‘vthe”l:of1″ence Sec.34 of IPC. Accused No.1 is
‘suffer R1. for a period of 6 months and Accused
No;.?. is sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period 3 months in View
his ol_d°:.age. Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are further
A to pay fine of Rs.10,000/– each in default to
undergo S.I. for a period of 6 months. Out of the fine
w
//V
amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/– is directed to be paid to PW5
as compensation.
The acquittal of Accused N03 and Accused L.
confirmed.
V 1' f ' ' d 5 '" sd/4 Judge Gps"° -------- M