-1 1 :~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE IVWDAY OF sEPTEMBEP&..2'O:Qé"I;'.1"-. V.
PRESENT : % 'fi is'
THE HON'BLE MR. JusT:IcEI:.G'.
AND L. ..
THE HON' BLE MR. IUSTIOBVBS.NA;"sATYA-ISAEIIAYANA " A
CRIMINAL.'APPEA£:..i$§OI4O'1/fi'OO'?'-A
BETWEEN
MAKRIs_H'AIAIA:-4| _ _
S/O ANNAPPA "
AGED"5'?_YER;TS," A
RETIREO TEACHE_R,.f= A_
R,/O cIv:.IkM--AGAL.u '
% APPELLANT
(By Sri: A 'PrI,B+4.AcV';PA_\/tA%,r\eT', )
. " -.S'TA"i'"E3OFEKARNATAKA
' ._BY RLIRAL POLICE
'CHICKAMAGALUR
REPRESENTED BY THE
A .-STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A I HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
..,-RESPONDENT
,*(By Sri s.B. PAVIN, SPP., )
-262-
burn injuries. In the complaint filed as per Ex.Pr5,_>PW.1
has further alleged that: the accused, who was
Head Master in the School called her to
asked her to sit by his side and toid»–«her her. d
When the complainant protester}, .,pi.ill€lid~..,t’he,V
hands of the complainant andthe compla–i.,nant*slappVed on’
the cheek of the accused. th-e.’accus’ed threatened
the complainant statin”gV:t_hat* and brought
the acid b0tt’¢.T”9_m acid on her
with the as a result, the
compla_inan’t~..fsulstained.’ her body and face.
Further, threatened by the accused
that if sh’e.:_’_we,rex”t,o'”tevealabout the incident to anybody,
she._iryould be he would tell that she was having
_rel.atio’nship with him. Therefore, in the said
“clrc’uVms’taVn~c_es,,'”she did not reveal the incident before
_ anybody.’ the basis of the said complaint, PW.9 « T.
,El\llageshv””Shet:ty included the offences punishable under
..__1Secti’ons 307 read with 354 of the IPC and prepared the
if ‘*F;iR and sought permission to include the offences
punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC as per
vi’
–:7:–
Ex.P6. On 14.03.1999 at about 7:15 p.ni,—._ the
complainant produced saree, bra and blouse
them under panchanama as per M.O. Nos.2l::to
mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence o§””PVv’s.S
to the place of the incident on
pillow and a broom stick.»=vv’nich the’
complainant. They were als.o””iaijg_rnt”here and there. He
seized them by conductin_g per Ex.P4 in
the Presence 4. He has
signed the *.9.e_r”«’iS>t._:i34V.(‘d). He has recorded
the staytemelntsl o1f:;.:Pw.;_j2:yveiéwarnalgowri, Vasanthakumari
(PW.3) and He received injury
certificate on iEx.P5 from Joidai Nursing
Horne. the V’a’rticle_s.i’or chemical examination. He
___on 24.09.1998 as per Ex.P7. He g
receiv’edV”.bVacl{ a.:rti.cles sent for chemical examination.
.Vcom;9.l”etio–nJ the investigation, he has filed the
44.lé.ch4a’rg..ess§1eetagainst the accused of having committed the %
‘punishable under Section 354 and 307 of the IPC.
‘ ‘ i.s«i,2§
~282-
2.2 Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed’«..to be
tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1
marked Exs.P1 to P7(a) and also got
to 6. On behalf of the accused;”‘t–he’
accused under Section 313
defence of the accused is onle.y:§’f~~d}eniaf case oil’
the accused that when their–corrui*plainanté’w’e-nt-‘hear the
cupboard, the acid on her and she
has sustained” irij’u_ry. Dws.1 to
4 were got marked.
The by judgement dated
27.02.2007; held prosecution has proved beyond
v4._.reason.aig’leidoeubtl accused used criminal force
the modesty of the complainant
proved beyond reasonabie doubt
that thleaecculsed, with an intention of causing the death of
complavilnant, threw acid on her and caused her burn
‘arid if the injuries had caused the death of the
it fcom’piainant, the accused would have been guifty of the
4′”<.'.oi'fence of murder and thereby, he has committed the
° 'x-moi
«:9»
offences punishabie under Sections 354 and 30«7–._IPC.
Accordingly, the learned triai Judge has
accused is guilty of having committed
punishable under Sections 354 ;:in'd"~30'7f_of_:vith'e'._IéC–7and.
after hearing the learned cou°nsel.A_l "f1lorl'"t.he* . accuised';~.u
sentenced the accused as ref.erregd to above}; being'
aggrieved by the said jud-genfrenlt-»t,_of co'n~viction and
sentence passed Court ~ II,
Chikmagalur, in emits/2ooo dated
27.02.2002,-'the_ vprefeirred this appeal.
._ learned counsel appearing
for the appepllantVand'.the.:_l.earned State Public Prosecutor
appeari'ng~ for the '~res_p_ondent – State.
counsel appearing for the appellant
V . hasuss through the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and
to"4 ad the contents of the documents Exs.P1 to P7
.3 and Exs.D1 to D23 and submitted that the prosecution
3 has miserably failed to prove that the appellant – accused
3. has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354
–: 14 :-
regard to the fact that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant has
offences punishable under Sections 354
and having regard to the fact thatthe”app-ellanty”bei.ng:V”tVhe«
Head Master of the school had hisyposvition=;.a’ndVF.g
caused injury to the complain:a’n.t swith
the intention of killing,-her, undelf’their..circuérn’sta’n:ces, the
trial court has rightly’fi__h’eld..i;’thatg:.l’ithez_jappellant has
attempted to cause. Therefore,
the sentenced” appellant by the trial
Court forr.the”‘o_ffei’it::es p.uniVshabier~ under Sections 354 and I
307 IPVCL, ‘-is same does not call for
inte rfe rence th a p’pea!
A fa. ‘«.pria’vin_g regard to the above said pleadings, the
p¥le~s.h’ts.th’etharis’e.’ier determination in this appeal are:~
é ‘ 1. Whether the finding of the trial
V”i-Court that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused — appellant
herein has committed the offences punishable
“-.v\”/I’;-/\§__r>»x–3s
bcontentions of the learned counsel appearing for the
–: 15 :-
under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC., is justified”-~._
or calls for interference in this appeal ? .’
2. Whether the sentence_.,._irnp.osed ._
upon the accused for the oifen’ces punisha«b’ie_”*’V”
undersecuons354anui3o7gr:?c;isgusaneaj»h’
or calls for interference»’in___this apbleai
We answer the above points fo-i*”d.é_terini.nation”as”follows :
PointiVo.1 : ‘The firmfing oi the ifiai cougt that the
proseci.ition ljproved reasonable .
doubt tuhait”‘i;:he.’lappeii.éin:t:’herein – accused has
jloffencesvlpyunishable under
secnaas 354 and 30? grxpcresjusufied and
the’hsarnedo’e.s°n’oticaii for interference in this
5.
:. g
.-g
s
E
iapDeaL’__c~*
Poinlt-~.No~.V2′ ” V.:_:’i’i5tiEi::sentence imiilosed by the trial Court
VA’.’~..agVain’s’t–:theappellant – accused is liable to be
“~.mo–dified’ as per the final order for the
foiioiiving:
REA§QNS
_l3gigL_ig9._§ We have considered the
\§~*
w:16:–
parties with reference to the material on recorciaand
scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence_”:aVd’dlucedu
before the trial Court.
8. PW.1 « D. Vasanthakuiri_a:i*iis the_-icomplaixnant’3
in this case. PW.2 « Swja”rnagowr.i.’a.ncl: H
Vasanthakumari were i«–working”‘ a;<i;:':'l'fe'a.cherés"i'r1 the same
School, wherein the"4"appe'irla.§nt' a%:¢u'sed and the
complainant they have gone to
the spot of theif'i»n_cid:e'nt'ii.:eVg~;__ of the appellant –
accused;~–wH5A'iAiia;':"7il9.rki-llglilvas H'ea~:i'§ Master of the School
immediately of the complainant (PW.1).
PW.4 – Man}n_J.na.thag_ovsicl'a'«had come to the School on the
date..4iaf'vvt'heV incide-nt_.__a.lvong with one Mariyappa, whose
(_','!'!aV'l1'dVVSOlfil"W€2.S""I'lOt permitted to attend the school -on the
not attend the school regularly and he
–has also. t_V;.one.Vto the spot immediately on hearing the cry
if””4’fl:o:f”the._cornplainant —- PW.1 and he is also a witness to the
– Exs.P2 and P4, wherein M.O. No.1 and MD.
“‘–e:iKlos.5 and 6 respectively were seized. PW/5 – Dr. 3.P.
Krishnegowda is the Medical Officer, who treated the
«. gavé
–:17:–
compiainant and issued the wound certificate as per.g’Ex.P5.
PW.6 is a witness to the mahazar — Ex.P3. But,_.h_’_if
supported the case of the prosecution. How4e_yerj,*-in
cross–examination by the iearneid””P’ub.Iic’._Prosecutor;tithe”.
has stated that he has signed –=
after reading its contents, wi:vi_cii..gaccordigngdto yvere
true. He has identifivedvM.Q..””i~iti_S:.i}”a~3 PW.7 –
Lokeshraj Urs is a witunefiss under Ex.P3
under which, “seized. PW.8 —
Paiakshappctjlivagesh Shetty are the
investig_atiio.n_ifoffiicets». Th.e’i.r’evid’~ence is already referred to
while narrating~thVe.fac:ts.
DVW.’i””-‘«..!\1.agaraj was working as Education
office, Chikmagalur and he has
a’ccorn.paVniedj.the DDPI., to Joidal Nursing Home on
V –V26.G244.’19§9.”‘fDW.2 — H.N. Gangadhar was working as
., “‘;{eadi–.i§4aster in Kabbigere Higher Primary Schooi and he
sipoiken to about his visit to the Magadi Higher Primary
T u:fSchooi as custodian of examination on 16.03.1999. DW.3
‘4 x– M.S. Nirvanasiddappa is a resident of Magadi and he was
\/QVJZ.
~I Z~
after abusing her and trying to outrage her modesty and
according to the appeiiant ~ accused, there’:V:v.;a:’3g:”‘van
accidentai fail of the acid from the bottie’
compiainant went near the cupbo’a’rd–,. gwijyereiiintajciwd bT0tti–e
had been kept. It is weii settied’.th:a_t
prosecution to prove beyond’~v.5easo’na_bi’e_d’ou’bt””i’ts”:case”
against the accused and buirdVen.~.o’F-.tAproof’required to be
discharged by the accused defence is not
one beyond” 4re:as_ona;b’ie”gcdoujjbfif.V_piiVt,~:preponderance of
probability” to appreciate the
evidence.Vsiaiidwitnesses in the light of the
docurvhAen’ts got”:rn.arkedVu._:t’hrough them to find out as to
whether”th.e has proved beyond reasonable _
dou5btthat it .t._h¢.vBCCused who abused the compiainant
i ;an«:lVo=.1_t’rag.éij’v her modesty and tried to cause her murder
‘bgy”trhrowAi”n:g acid on her and caused her burn injuries or as
to éwhetheréi the accused — appeiiant has been successfui in
Asubstavntiating his defence that the injuries that were
iiisuistained by the complainant was due to accidentai fail of
it “acid from the bottie while the complainant went near the
cu p boa rd.
tang/»V,Q>
-: 20 :-
11. The prosecution in order to bring home the
guiit of the appeiiant ~ accused is refying mainly upon
evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 8 and 9 and the documents –.
Exs.P1 to P7(a).
12. PW.l ~ D. Vasanthakun§ar:i:’,’~~the.vco.h§piaViihaVnty’H”V
has deposed in her examinati.or:–in~ch’iet’i_:beiferge the”triai’V§
Court on 09.10.2006 that she she
was working as Teacher in x’VF”rimary
Schoof from 04.02..19307′:g%;t’~,,ggMagaath-. was her_first %
appointment. Head? Master of the
Schooi. appointed, he used to can
her to attendVV”a_,f.itheV’ saying that she shoufd
ieyarn th.at,anid sheV’u’s’eii_?_Q,attend the said work. She used
sitting on the right side of his tabfe in
his offiicheu year, accused did not troubfe her,
tmt, after grit; year, he started giving her troubie. PW.1
‘i.fhas:s..’,:furtherdeposed that the accused started to iook at
manner and he used to teii her that he was
io.v’in’g’her very much and that she too should love him and
saying 50, he used to give her torture. Due to such
.. ,9′ g
~: 34 :-
on the date of her cross–examination, she was working’.-in
Magadi School.
13. PW.2 — Swarnagowri has”»depo–“sedhin]_
examination-in–chief that PW.1 was her7′.AcoileaguAe.~_
was working as Assistant Teacherifrom 3199.8 “at:
Magadi School. In the year 1999-,VVV..the”accosed”was the
Head Master of the saidu”sécl-1oo.l_.f ;i5MV’a$a~nthakumari
(PW.1) was also wvorking school at
that time. retained PW.1 in
his office in of the students
— Harish and She went back to her
ciass. Her”Q;_ass.V the side of the office of the
3:45 pm., she heard about the
office of the Head Master. So, she went
S to lying by the side of the chair, which
if was ltiheregpyéllllthe side of the tabie of the Head Master
ififef”Vs.ayi:~iig4_.Aaiootit the burning sensation as “Uri Uri”. At that
accused and PW.1 were the oniy persons present
if :flin””the said room. She asked PW.1 as to what had
“happened. But, PW.1 was not in a position to speak.
\
%W”.”.””‘
-: 38 :9
force of the accused, they have given such statement. It,
is not true to suggest that the accused did not force.A.th:e’mi’g:’~.r2
to give such statement. Poiice did not enquire ah.ojut,tii:er-ii’
incident either on 02.03.1999 or o3.o3>;1«999.rii” orig
true to Suggest that she became HeadiViist’ress'”‘a.’nd
has secreted time tabie and notes.._vof~._iessoiis. ‘ iVs–Tn’o’t
true to suggest that she has§ecre.t-eciV:A’§hera9__i/vithavieiiv to
suppress the truth. It isiiiitrue B.E.O.,
A.E.O., Kreedadhilfarig’ and the School.
She is a resident PW.3 was
residing neari.Anj’a~.nev’é::r:,Tem pieiai Vij a.y’apura. Kana ka raj,
brother–in–iaw of wasviuaifsojVreside’nt__’of Vijayapura at ‘
that time. It is not true_4_to.,su’gg’Ves_t’ herself and PW.3
did not __i.nsist the to the Government
i-iospitalz.'”fi’he”e’cVcu.sediohjected for taking the victim to
thefifiovernment.’-H’osp:iVtag:!–f is not true to suggest PW.2,
PW.3V7ia_nd~VKanai€ara§,Vwere the residents of Vijayapura.
‘:9 ivoiVun.tariiyr~-admitted PW.1 to Joidai Nursing Home.
9, Police did not make enquiry about the
It is not true to suggest that the Teachers
Ass.o’c.iatio’n instigated her to give faise statement against
‘x;i.»cfi*
…………w..~_,i……_.n_..u_i,”s_..\m,….i .. _ . 1’ K ., ,. i. V ._._, ‘«V~4;ulIvIvIIiV Al
f.. V__
-; 39 ;-
the aocused and they told her that in the event of
suspension of the accused, she would become Head
Mistress.
14. PW.3 – Vasanthakumari was as ,
Physical Instructor in Magadi School.
and 2. They were her colleagues. She knsows.’the”accuse’d»-,
and he was the Head Master of the”a’sai__ci’
deposed that on 23.o2.199s,arte;ir’ii 1
pm. to 1-45 p.m., and
warned them not he calls
anybody”… “to their respective classes.
Accused retainevd office in respect of writing
T.c.7y.”s.iE.o. iiise.y.,sh_ey.was there in the office and at 3:45
shouting of PW.1. PW.1 was crying as
‘lA~mrna, By that time, she came out of the class.
V –VPW.2.'”‘w..eh.:t. tovgthe office. She also went to the office and
‘struggling by the side of the table of the Head
on the ground. Her body and clothes were
it :’–.:V’VVb’u”rning. Accused told them that the acid bottle fell down
3 on PW.1. But, it was not so. PW.1 was not in a position
\9»\§>’
-22-
accused did not give opportunity to speak anythingggwith
the B.E.O. It is not true to suggest that
keeping all the Teachers outside and by caiiing_:::oi1jei..by”o’n’e_A§V’
inside, recorded their statements.” ‘*Acc’usec.’.:Vt’hr_ea’te’neci.
them to write on 26.02.1999. :i’sV_xnot2.i;_zfuei~
accused did not threaten a.’mafnnVe;f.””W’ On 2′
24.02.1999, the acc.useqVAv…..g’é:t ‘statement of
Swarnagowri (PW.2). signature on
the statement’_ijy’i.._forg:e’.”:”_’c3n§¢ffg.fgai’n;§’ the accused got
separate sta’tein__e’n>ts_V’fro.m.__thei’n_ 26.02.1999. PW.3 has ,
again sr.ated°th.at’*h.er Ex.D1 is given by her
on 27:V;.Q2..1’999’u”Mien came. She does not
remember’i._wheth”e.r2’she:..’i’has given any statement on
26.0.2.J.9i99. i’s–vnot_gti’ue to suggest that the accused did
noi«.ask.,>vA_ainyioody to give cow dung and he did not ask
t’heVn5..v.to’V Vasanthakumari (PW.1) to drink cow
2 2 dung””vva’ter..’ It is not true to suggest that herseif and
it2″”flv.9vvarnagVowri (PW.2) did not insist the accused to admit
to Government Hospital. The accused refused for
2 same and insisted them to admit PW.1 to private
nursing Home. Accused came on a separate vehicle to
§
‘ §L/\V,>r3s
~: 45 :-
were present in the office room. It is true that Pwgt. was
science teacher and she was teaching 5″‘ and Gficlfasses.
It is not true to suggest that she was taking-.y’:§'””V
Pankaja was taking the said cl.ass»..a’s
She was also taking 3″‘ and 4″‘ iciasses. it not
suggest that it is when PW.’t._vo’eened”‘ith_e to’5l<eep" '
notes of lessons, acidhad fa–!leg'ri«_o'n..gAher' and that herself
and Swarnagowri. (PW".2a)g–rhadvthe same. It is
not true to s4ugg_est;'t'hat::'on"the three higher I
officers open'ed -.and acid bottle, cap
of thsereiiwas fall of acid inside of
the door of they saw the same and went
away ands:_'_'theyV"haye= reported the same to higher
auth;oritii.es. iieryryelation with the said three officers are
It is not true to suggest that when B.E.O.,
cahae to:"Vt'h.e'f5c'hool, the betterment Committee Chairman
~ li'evan:as'rd.dappa was also present . It is true that on
23.02.1999, Revanasiddappa was getting the bore well
if "'r.e_pa'iA'red in the School. It is not true to suggest that the
""accused was objecting for her work as the same was not
satisfactory. It is not true to suggest that PW.1, herself
Ks twin
'\/'
–: 46 :-
and Swarnagowri (PW.2) are friends and they were-_not in
good terms with the accused. It is not true trids-ugg.gest
that she was deposing falsely due to the
true that B.E.O., has made allegation’agiainstherllper
Ex.D3. It is true that she was
volunteered that she was wit’h.ou’t any”
enquiry. She did not act V_a-da’ma’n.t_iy before.-veeranna.
But, he made allegationsherfasyper Ex.D4. It is
further eiicited’_in,__theicro’s’s:{:e~x:arfiination”of PW.3 that she ‘
admits her4–sjig4né;tii’;re”o:n_A__lE»x.DSilasper Ex.D5(a) and the
signatureoFV.S’wa:;riagojvv’.ri’ (“P’W..2)5as per Ex.D5(b). But,
she does’ not of the said statement. It
is not truextol they have voluntarily given
theirgstatement’ a–syQ_er.Ex.D6. It is further eiicited that
acco.rdm_g:.to.:h–er, the said statement was taken under
complained to their higher authorities
it .Vabout”‘taking'”those statements by force. But, they have
giverrthe same in writing. It is further elicited in her
‘r__~_crt:.ss’–e”><amination that from the Joldal Nursing Home,
it :'.i:V"t'h'ey did not try to take the victim to Government Hospital.
"Witness has volunteered that the accused was looking
We
-1472-
after the victim. It is not true tosuggest that she has filed
the compiaint faiseiy against the accused. The oiigfiinaiior
Ex.D14 was shown to PW.3 and it was marked
and the witness has volunteered” that 7_it ‘aT.fu’lii
statement. It is not true to sugdestcthat .Vbott!le’~.feii._VV
on the body of Vasantha l'<tIffi'a_l'F (Ai5\."J__.1).V_w!jen:"'s'h'e'V'wast'
present in the office room. VAIt—'ifs':no'i:.._true "tosurgjgest that
she has given statementto. "effect that it was
an accidental faii pf isfurther elicited
that it is 'isVu:g'gesi:" a view to give
harassment"to:'thle;,aVccuseci; sriewcis cieposing faisely.
15. A x–” ivlanjunathagowda has deposed in
his examicnationléinaicvhief that he knows PWs.1 to 3 and the
a:ccu_s:ed.i ~Ai§iis:’w.ife was teacher in Shishuvihara at Magadi
a’bo{;lt__8 before the date of his deposition. So,
_they”weria.re’siding at Magadi. At that time, he was a
agent. Accused was Head Master at that time.
years next before the date of his deposition, he
if –:’..:’we’nt to the School along with one Mariyappa, whose
if ” “grand son was not permitted to attend the School on the
Wxg
‘ -: 48 :«
ground that he did not attend the Schooi regu!ariyV..-~___PW.1
was there in the School and the accused was asking-.h’eer’t_.o
write a report against the said boy to
intervened and asked the accusedto-.excijsevithe]_sVai’di1«bo;{
and toid him that in future, sutij 7t.iji”rigsii”-woiiiodi.
repeated. At about 4 or he._hea,Vrd’v_:th’e’sound oft”
shouting from the Schooi an.d~~~ch”i’idren weretseavrching for _
cow dung. Immediateiij/,’é’h’e Cow dung
was Dasted on_the_Vwas shifted in an
Auto. Atroom, there were
stains Aithetabie, chair and on the
ground, near the cupboard. He went
to the hospitiaf not in a position to speak.
_ Firsti: the spo’t”‘–.pa§_n_chanama was conducted and then,
.’th’i«ng’;Vs .we.re’:seized and he acted as a pancha to the said
i”‘paAn.chaVnaarfia Exs.P2 and P4. He has identified his
signator*eAs”as per Exs.P2(b) and P4(c) and has aiso
M.O. i\ios.1, S and 6 which were seized under
.’ and P4.
-2 49 :–
15.1 It is elicited in the cross—examination o§___PW.4
that it is not true to suggest that he used to blackV:rna’ilg:’tvhe
public by stating that he was a paper
reporter. It is not true to suggest »that’4whivle’, he
was accompanying the Police when
is true that himself and Gowra’in_ma were’the:o’nivVy”‘p’e’rsons”‘
residing at Magadi. Itis tosuggest. that he did
not go to School along respect of his
grand son. Heédoegs the grand son
of Mariyap.p–a§”rvdidi.Ilireyceiyaflarnegrrio the School to the
effectVythat_Ahe::”w:aIs:A_the School properly. He
does not Mariyappa and his son did
give applrcatiovnxto School. Mariyappa was requesting
D. Mgiasanthakwumayri ____ M(i>W.1) to entertain his grand son. I
stated that Mariyappa was requesting the
l”‘acVcused’ and n;o’t”D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1). It is not true
thalt”‘he”–did’ not talk to the accused in respect of the grand V
Mlariyappa. It is not true to suggest that he did not
.’ uh-ea’r”the sound at about 4 to 4:30 pm. and that children
“were not searing for cow dung and that he did not go to
the School. He does not know as to whether the
9: 50 :-
neighbouring residents were present or not at that_–time.
Poiice did record his statement in the School by
name. His statement may have been –sf’écovrd.e’d°ion’a ”
15.03.1999. Among the Police, he-“does at
to who recorded his statement. or
Poiice at that time. He rern_em1)ie: xjwho ”
were the persons present atVA.thua.t_:-tiirne. ‘i–ie”h.adv:§gone to
Joldal Nursing Home in”t’iie.’e\’ke_nii»n.g teil the
actual time at the hospitai,
the son of{._ were there in
additionto It is not true to
suggest,tha’t Vasanthakumari and her
parents werei present. “ai.’:}that time. According to him,
there5é:.wa’s iabeI”on____the bottle ~ M.O. No.1. He does not
a,s’«to«.,:wh_ether the chit bearing his signature was
It is not true to suggest that M.().
V -V No.t”is ‘not.’the bottle which was seized on that day. He
‘”‘v.’u.,¢anin.ot Vvwsay the contents of the mahazar. E3.
9 \/asanthakumari (PW.i) toid on the said day that there
was acid on the chair, piilow and broom stick.
\/’
-151:»
16. PWs.5 to 9 have not spoken to about the
incident. PW.5 — Dr. ;i.P. Krishnegowda is the Medical
Officer who treated the compiainant at JoldalVV.i\i.uE’s_ing
Horne. PW.6 — Dayananda has turned hostiie;;””‘Acco§jdi:;frg« _
to the prosecution, PW.6 was a
panchanama – E> Vitsokesha is a pancha witness for panchanarna –
which M.O. Nos.2 to 4 were seized and he
V P identified his signature as per Ex..P3(c) and MD. Nos.2
4. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.7
\
9 ” “present.
-; 53 :-
There was acid fall on the right side of the face,-.___right
shoulder, right arm and right side of cheek. Thereflwevre
10 to 150/o burn injuries. He treated her ”
further, she was admitted in their.:Hospitai_” 9′
there up to 26.02.1999 as indoor;”ipVat7ient. lli’~;~.t,_V;_%«;,s;1.
to his opinion, the said injiiirtes we”re__ dI.iVe’-.:to”~.itfie ‘Vacldf
Accordingly, he has issued vth–eV.g’i.*.tound certificatie as per
Ex.P5, which bears hisViélsignattireltlliastheir.’Ex.P5(a). He
asked the compiai,nant;”to”corne on aiternative
day for _r-otwlcome.
cross–examination of PW.5
that it when the complainant was
adrni%tted~to the ihospgigtal, her generai condition was good
?i3urn”‘~-.injuries were getting healed up when she
and even at that time, her general
V’ .V con’d’iti.on:Jwa.s good. It is not true to suggest that when
4Aitin’pwtiaeiiacornolainant was admitted to their hospitai, her
_’ husbalnd, her brother~in~law and father~–in~Eaw were aiso
V: 54:-
18. It is clear from the scrutiny of the above said
evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that the evidence of PW.5;._”wi.hy–ich..A§s
relied upon by the learned counsel appea’ring..l.:’t’o.r”i
Appellant to the effect that at theirearlie’stWpo’int of.4.’ti,m”e.. it
when the complainant was taken’«for’.A_AtreatW~eAntto
Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda in 3oida’l’~w..r§iursi.rig__ Honda,V”sh’e”i’nerself”‘V
has stated before himfthat sh.e–VVs’ust’a–i..nedhlbllurn.injuries due
to accidental fall of acigytancj. was responsible
for the same and the said not treated as
hostile and the fact that the
in3urY,S1.iSfaVl’rléU;l4’Z’i¥ to accidental fall of acid
and “i that two colleagues of the
complainant, in the hospital also told
him§that~ the b’urnVi__nju.:*y sustained by the complainant was
.clue_to__accidental fall of acid. However, on close scrutiny
of PW.5, it is clear that PW.5 has no
reo’ard”.truth. His evidence would show that the
had come to the hospital and met the Doctor
prior to the arrival of the injured complainant
“”(“PW.1) and he informed PW.5 that his colleague had
sustained injury and was weeping. Though PW.5 contends
xxvbyg
–: 56 :-
had poured acid on her and that she herself was”
responsible for the injury and to that extent, the evidence’-.._,l_l’~._v
of PW.S, which is not truthful and reliable, cannot at ‘V’
accepted.
appearing for the appellant that the e;v.i’de:’ncre’
helpful to the appellant – accu’s_e’d_VtolAprove_ tlhatusmg
prosecution has filed a false case..l:VVajg,,r_ai’n.st the«i.a_ccu§sed
cannot at all be accepted. clea’r§.,fArori'{tithe -evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 that the tfUt_lf1 took place
has not been stated or”;PW.3 prior to
the inforrnation, was discharged
.==…,~, » , T.” ,« .,.. ,,,,,l,_:. ..
The contention of the_learned””coufnsleilVB,
from lj.old–a’l ‘run by PW.5 and her family
rnernbers”compeileldtherlftotell the truth and the complaint
waogfiiecl on ‘lo2.p3.1999. It was only after 16.03.1999
» that’ PWs.2 and 3 about the actual incident that
and the cause of her injury and that the
said in’juri”e”s were caused due to pouring of acid on her by
“‘Lhe,_.AapVpel|ant – accused and only then, PWs.2 and 3 came
know that it was the accused, who threw acid on the
it “complainant and caused injury to her and that the injuries
‘\.»°vx,?.
‘””.. ~.
W: 59 .»
there is ring of truth in her evidence as to how the in–cident
took place. The contradictions got marked in the”evigjeg:nce
of the complainant — PW.1, would not in any v-ray
truthful and reliable evidence of'”PW..A1,ffwhxichlfiislwl be
accepted having regard to the facts
examination and the circumstances under.VVAw’hiciiiV”‘she has ”
explained as to why shecouldi.–no.tg_:na’rrAate ‘the’t.rue’§ incident
when the complaint Therefore,
there is no merit’ in tlééllllearned counsel
for the of PW.1 is
not truvthfulgglanfd A’t’hat.e§vidence of PWs.2 and 3
does not of PW.1. Appreciation of
the eviden’c4eliJy Vt’li_e4Vtria!:Court is justified and the learned
_ trialjudge ha’s”v–.rig__htAly relied upon the evidence of the
:compiai.TrIé.fit:¥*~-PW.1 as truthful and reliable. Therefore,
lhavli-nig the above said evidence of the
V . com’.plaina.n’t”.V~ PW.1, it is clear that the same is truthful
“V”V–.and.__reliable and her evidence cannot be discarded as
u’nreI’iable or as suffering from inconsistency and
T ‘contradiction as to make the case of the prosecution
fl doubtful. The evidence of the complainant — PW.1 has to
t
b/52″”)
-: 63 :-
discharged by the appellant – accused for proving the
defence is not one beyond reasonable doubt-;._H:’in’j_t’ize
present case, the accused has miserably ”
substantiate his defence and appreciationj”ofihthie. if
of DWs.1 to 4 would clearly show thyattheir fevidelncye
truthful and reliable. It is-_c’l’ear from ‘the’-.:e’vidernce of”?
PWs.1 to 3, who were,yvorkin.g-hasTeachers’in. the School
at Magadi that the as Head
Master of the_::’s_choo’lVV’VlihaéjV_:thtreatenedV”them of dire
consequ of r disclosing truth and
under compelled to give
staterrients’ “truth, before the Enquiry
Officer ~ “DW’.4V wV’an.d*.’.wh:’e.refore, much importance cannot
be .a:ijtacihed to the_s_tatements given by PWs.1 to 3 before
_iivh.o’.co~nducted enquiry regarding the incident. The
‘.defe.ri’ce’ ex’/j’»i–de’nce adduced in the present case is not at all
helpful “to the accused to substantiate the defence taken
“”3″‘V.«._:b’y.’–.t.r1€vVH’aCCUSed that the complainant – PW1 sustained
.’ igjury due to accidental fall of acid bottle from the cup
“board.
~: 64 :-
21. Having regard to the above said reasoni-~n_g, it
is clear that the prosecution has proved
reasonable doubt that the appellant — ”
outraged the modesty of PW.1 and ithatghegéf a’cidf.oVn..A
the complainant — PW.1 and caused
an intention of causing her and thereby bfififirraitted f’
the offences punishable. underi.Sectio’n~sg.35.4and. 357 of the
IPC. The Triai Courtffiahftefrthe oral and
documentary 7 come to the
conclusion :_. ” proved beyond
reasonable’ _A’Véio:ubVt1:,:{ «–:gp_p’:ellant ~ accused has
committed: under Sections 354
and 307t,he” regard to the above
reas.0§ning~,. it isfnlclrearth,-at the said finding of the trial Court
is:j«ustifived.%anci–does not suffer from any error or illegality
as.:to.,cal’l’éf.ogr. inhtferference in this appeal. Accordingly, we
V –V ansvlier pointfNo.1 by hoiding that the finding of the trial
the prosecution has proved beyond reasonabie
that the accused has committed the offences
T “punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC is
.
-: 66 2*
has further ordered that out of the fine amount of
Rs.2,10,000/–, Rs.2,00,000/– shall be paid to.«..theV”-vji’cti’vm
(PW.1) as compensation. Having
circumstances under which the””–offe”nce.’fiiadV:been
committed by the appeiiant — acctiysedA’anci’h.av~ing
to the facts of the case andthe”~~punisV’fim.en.tVprescribed ford’
the offence under Section is”ciea~r’V§that the
sentence imposed accused by the
triai Court to for two years
and to pay:-a tT1_fld. inmdefault of payment
of finey,…to im«pri.s’onment for six months,
cannot*~,at”aii excessive as to cail for
interference and th_erefore’, the sentence imposed upon the
appe§:i.iavn’t j acc’us.ed___t”or having committed the offence
ip:u’niysiia_bie=.und_er Section 354 of IPC is entitled to be
con fi.rmedé{Jf –. if
” 22.1 However, having regard to the facts of the
— casefliand the circumstances under which the offence has
been committed by the appellant – accused and the
punishment prescribed for the offence of attempt to cause
‘i,
-3″)
*~»m,m,_,,_
«: 71 :-
concurrentiy and the appellant shall be entitled to{“3’eTt~off
for the period of detention already undergo.n.e”»Vb’3af~himé
against the sentence now imposed, under Sectioin’~?i42’8i’oi!
the Criminal Procedure Code. :A’ccordi_n”giy;.’ of
sentence passed by the triai Cour3t’.a<_:;'aV_i.nst th_eAa'ppe'iian'ti
accused is modified and tiie.'V"judgen1en't.iofdcoini/iction
passed by the trial Coort ien""ai!ni.:'othet res;§Ve'cts"V remains
unaitered.
~ _.3_”‘:.=maV