IN THE HIGH (EOURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 23rd DfifY"bQ§"J.ANUARY;--.§3.{}O9_
PR.EsE1\ r1i x
THE HONBLE MRS. JL1s*ri§::«: % MA'm::LA C%{ELLUR
THE HQNBLE MR. 'L5"f.fiI$'1*1{;i§:B;.':'$§R.3§§ENIVASE GOWBA
cR:M1NAI§,"égpfimnfrzg. %6*;?éV'§f 2002
Between: '
The Stems A'
B3,»-' Pa£hapa1y€;;--vPQii(;e --S_ta§ion _'
(Repmseriteci by ._3L_
Pubiic P:pSe:cu*£~:;rG«V
G. ;5;i*;ja1n--:aH1urthy, HOG?)
1", Raddy, S/<3 Balrcddy
Ageci=28 years,
Siifiivasamddy, S/0 Baiajrtiddy,
fégcd 125 years
Berth are mfiidents of
C,-hinrttzagarzapalii
Bagepaili Taiuk.
(By Sri B. Papegewda, Adv.)
Appellant
Respondcnts.
B»)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sectioi1._§3;2*V8{'1}.V'EeV.(3)
C1r.P.fL'. by the State praying to grant leave m-3__f1ie" 331-. appeal
against the judgment dated 3.10.2601 L" by
learned Prl. C.-J. (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, C.C.»u
539.348/2000
aeqliitfing the res3ponden’is~aa:c.i1set1__”f<ii:f ihe;___
offences 13/33. 323, 326 R/W 3.r'~_1iI.E4"C}._ _
This Appeal coming on
CHELLUR. J. delivered the f(3}3.§\a'i11g: " —
This appeal is jrhe judgtzixent end
acquittal in {j;..:.1No.348j'2iZ3C§O.::ei§ eta; file of the Pr]. Civil
audgc; %%%% i'(Jr.i;:a.}ii'i:.3¥; .i:m:'<:, eagepam dated 3rd October,
:2. 5- In tiie iiiief facts ieadimg to filing of charge
" Sheet the eeeused persons are as under:
-gaiecused Manjimath Ready and 21% accused
are brothers. It is also admitted that these
two aeeused are none ether than the Cousin of the
Saraswathainma as they are some of her
-*-Iiiatemai uncle. Aeeerding to the pmseeutien the
complainant belongs to (LZPM party. On the date of the
incident Le. 23.2.2000, panehayat eleefiens were going on
in the cenccrned panchayat at “«3.u¢;
According to the pmsecution, i_t’his
case, after casting hm’ votqtsfas
and at a. distance «of 180 ft. the HI’t0tiCCCi
1 and A $2 assatflflttg-A._ giddy’ 3136
th€I’CfOI’€ izltelfizted ultimately A 1
and A 2 “%o:;:3-.2153; tttttiCI3″‘t€S1fltCd in falling of
her two wifll a stone and A I
with to be lodged an the next
day. Fttoznét she was referred to the
coxacérzmd C-sntrc where she was tmated and
:WQt{11d.”‘c:tartj1’icate was also issued. During the ceurse of
stone was mixed at the spot. When the
Went ta lodge the complaint, tare teeth came
tiahded aver to the police by her saying that two
ttfltéttittt had falien an the previeus afternoon when the
T éiiicused assaulted her an the face. After mmpiefing the
A irivastigatien, charge sheet came to be filed against the
accused pemons far the amve said offencas. The matter
was tried by the Civil Judge ( Jr. D11.)
Bafare the tria} Court.
3. The main ground of delfir
in iodging the compiagnt my and them
was political ill-will and the
accused belongs to CPM
party a;r1d=7 ‘BJP party. It was also
arguefi “”” Judge that when
panch%éiy’aV:t.”– progress, on the date of 1:116
incident, ‘was persesrmei at the f:l€CtiO1.’} booth,
‘ _,_g«1A_~ éafitflii fiave tié:éii&Vn0Ima1 and natural either for the
V”g:rf}hcr Icith and kin including hsr husband to
iniezfin aha-ut the incicimat. Ncthmg happened on
“€133 Bay. This wauid oniy gt) ta Shaw that a false msa
_ zioncocted against the accused to wrttck vengeance
V% to peliticafl rivalry, was the defence taken by the
accused.
4. Tbs learned Trial Judge an appraisai:§A’_i§:f ..e1fivt;i1-£2.
evidence on record ultimately ‘1 T ‘is ‘I
inardinate delay in lo
conciude that A 1 and A 2 assaulteé She
lost her two upper teeth.
6, We havc gene tI1rough_theé’c:itire esfifiiézicé,
the judgnens: of the trial mat-would arise;
for our censiderationA-.i§§%«-wh§tig;éf ‘Stats has made out a
68.36 V’–ir1t§:rféferics with the judgment of
acquiftg3′<;§f m«.=5 '
'3'. V' "So far Vizsustenanctz of iI'}jLiI'}«' apart from the
«-316 coxnplainant PW 2, We have the wound
'KP 5 and the evidence of the doctor who
tréi:g:{1:« t?i£§, ixajurad at Genera} Hospitai, Bagepalli an
ié4;2.2{§C£9. As per {ha Waumd certificate and the evidence
'tiixe doctor the fallowing injxlries were found:
i) 1033 Of firm: incisors on 18% and right upper jaw
present
~42
ii) incisors have become loose.
It is opined that the injuries are gievous iI2..u’f1at.1;i*ef’ -T ‘
8. Aeeerding t9 the proeecuf3’1on;,””£}§e «incident
at ah-cut 11.00 am. when 1_:he_._ wage: efier
casting her vote, the beirlgpofuifsixas ef the
injured comp1a*ma.nt’= ” that from the
beginning Sht°_§_’3;}(§10Ii§3,S} she reluctantly’
to BJP party. In the
cross gven for the delay in lodging
the A.e0mp1£i:i:”1:i; ‘Wes she feil unconscious due to the
* aSSai1If’eefiA.her meiith and she gained conscious on the
She even goes to the extent of saying
she has to verify the same from. her husband
The incident occurred 100 yarde from the
ef the election booth and there would be 50 to 643
-~–‘p:ereens at the spot and if such incideni: happens Whereira
a lady loses»; consciousness and falls definitely the poijee
who were present near the heath weuid have noticed the
samfi: or same one Weuid have ciefinitely drawn tlrleir
attention to the said fact. Surprisingly them
an recasrd to shew when carried this ia.r_ijf i.£=_v%its
uncunscious to her viiiage which 6 miiezs’ va{v21y”~fr<;~;n ._th'e.
€}6Cfi()Il booth and how she wasvlzgarzried'? 'She. €i'e”*.~ir1A.’; ‘wen .
say that her husband ‘4._}3resé:21tV’ V3;*§<:ide11f'
happens. ¥_Jnfc1'tuna_;te1y * Anancl
Raddy who happened 1:'-ertare scene of Offfiflcfi
is n0t:v:exaIsri:ié(1…V_V:'Nc'«;§ri32'ate.' person Le. among 50 1:0 60
mmlga w?hQ wcre'~–;ifw'e§s.a1ifi- the szput are Examined. Even
in $1.: sp<:1tV said to; have been drawn, seine
,Ade1;bt3_"arr:.4¢rt:ated as none of the mahazar wimesscts has
of the prosecution. C11; the other hand,
V . we '3.{s0- £105.63 that on the: date of the incident, after
H " V' ' .:.e1<:ctj01i firitI1 30 3131311}? pcaple walking around the area, two
–‘ fihich had faflcn €311 :23.2.’2GGO were still available at
” “Vibe spot tiil tht-; next day when complainant want 1:0 ceiltct
the tegth. There is ahsaiutcly new material on record to
Show that with this nature of iI3j1iI’}r” a person wcnxid lose
consciousness for about 24 hours ‘*Vshé.::’losés” hei’..__
teeth. It is also not known “i9étA’c30rssci(§usr1ess–.__ L
What. her kith and }:inV,[‘o¥§fre ‘(icing a
complaint or givifig n’:r.%.dic:3′.uiVL’L’.-§.fi;1;:3:f1VVtioi’i”f€;§VI:” zfgo11:r’s. Even
ntherwise, whether CO1%S;3iO1IS1″kCSS for
24 hours with a big question
before % i} K
9. to the prosecution the
the size stone at the spot, but
313:1} twp th e iifixt day. The: Complainant says on
” V. = gait}; Ashe know with what. object she was
Thémfore the st-‘zizure of size stone at the spot
becomgz’ ‘rfiéicmous and irrelevant These are suspicious
cigicuinstanccs which are brought in the evidence of the
‘ on record. The injured complainant seems 1:0
_,,_;javC tfaveilcd 6 miles to tha piazza of incident on the nsxt
day to coflfizct two tmth on the spot and then went to
Bagespalli police station to lodge compiaint in question.
10. In View of the above discussion, though in the
normal circumstance the evidence of the i11jigrc;d.._}w.itness
inspires conficience in the mind of 1:113. l’;:(iiiI*t§,”—
regard 1:9 the pelitical ili-will between
the accused persons who bé:i0n;Ig[£0 dlfierént in ”
the absence of the pr{;§s§:£:;1tioii”- deisiy
properly in lodging the Eannot take
a difierent opinion Court and We hold
that there 119: £16.’ rcascming of the trial
Court ta acq11i’L_t3f1c:: acefiséjti charges.
*;acc§£di::g1y 13316 afilifialfl &&&&& is dismissed.
Sci/-9
Iudg3
Sd/-
Judge
Vb?-