m Tim HIGH comm’ 01+’ KAm~IA’rA1<;,s.jT
CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA
Dated the 7th day cf August . " M
:BEFoRE:«
THE }{ON'BLE MR.JUST_ICE '
cR1M:NA_;, APP§_ALv._ fi"a, _g93 I 2mg
BETWEEN :
Shivaputra, ; ‘~ _ ‘
Aged ‘
R/0 Han1rgcfi,;Bidar. t *
~~~~ …
( Raddy, Advomtes. )
AND:
” Gungi Poiice,
. . . Re.-spoxment
Antradlxa Dezeaé, Add1.S.P.P. )
4′ k$ Criminal Apm flied under Section 374(2) of
the C–r.P.C. awnst the judgment dated 3.2.2003
jiassed by the Prl.S.J., Bidar, in S.C.No. 76/1999,
convicting and sentencing the appellant for the
ofiaxoe as stated therein.
oomplainant and he tme it and then
complainant and assauited him with has figmn%% _
nose of the complainant leading to ” ., V’
caused to the oomplainanfs f;
3. The complainant, giéficg
duty at that point of “~3.._ with
P.W.7, the P.S.I. of fiation,
Bidar, who in Crime
No.51/199$! :5 the court as per
ii2><.P~ۤ. """ On camplcticm 01'
the was submitted against
the 'the punishable unda Section
""" plmdjng mt guilty to the
pxfascctxfion led evidcrwe by examining
documents Exs.?-1 to 13-9 were
MO. 1 is the unifomzt shht which was torn.
V' ixmident. On being questioned under Sectian
of the Cr.P.C., the accused denied the mac ofthe
' pmsecutitm and led no evidence in his defenw.
5
there is delay in sending the 13.1.12. to the court;
also contended that there is
evidence of P.W.2, the complainant, and” “‘ 2
eyewvitrxess and further, the if
P.W.6 has not supported
7. On the other for
the State trial court
requires I10%_ .5;-osecufion has
estab1ishe d through the
and also through
P.W.5,vV”‘b§t.’1V the police aificiak and
Govgzanmmii As regards non-mentinning of
% . % 3″? dfthe ash & 31a’ at in the injury m’tif’;u:a.te, it is
in the oomplahlt itself’, the name of
the i.e., the accused, has been merntionaw
and the name of the eye-witnegs. Hence, no
can be found in the prwacufion case and
the trial ceurt has convicted the accused mid
sentmwd him. 9′
/if
at the reievant time was 520.
6
3% Having heard the submissions of the
counsel for the parties as aforesaid, I ‘
examined the evidence on as_.”1%é’e:}iiti1§:
judgment of the ma!’ court. 1′-It
evidence of P.W.2, the cémglaihazdt km5at%
when he was on duty on 9.30
p.m., he saw the the public
and when ‘he was mught
hold of shirt was torn
and him on his nose
with he suffered fracture of the
11036;; ~ _
‘ “. by the wmpiainant that the
$683 by one Jagamzath, one Vittalrao
_ and” 5v Shivaraj, Hmd Constable. This marédence
I V A }P;’W’.2 is eorroboraited by the evidamrse <33' P.W.5,
{zinc is the Head Constable and Whose badge 11112111161'
The said witness
P.W.5 has fufly narmzzed the whole incident and has
deposed to the efiect that an 15.7.1998, he and the
n
$5
'I
complainant were on duty in the Poiioe Outpost.
Akkamahasdevi Care' 16. He has spoken
assault comm1t'ted by 2
complainant with his fast and fiautéixifi
nose of the complainant. %
of the cmnplainant which it} tfié In
order to establish was on duty
on the said qgtg. agd certificate
ze. is confirmed by
the 1, who, in his evidence,
has 5 " the compialnant on
A"%16';?:%199s'%at abéfii 2.40 am. and nausea' the
1} A over the nose with sweliixg and
with nasal bone fi'actu:re with bimmg
awe.
Cnntusion met the right eye corxgmw and
black eye with blurred
,3′:
‘.4
8
1%. In the mvss m of all the above
witnesses, Iwthing was brought about
their testimony. No doubt, ” ” ‘V
independent eye-witness, not. 3 7-]
prosecution case, but that nfifit %
the View that the and
P.W.5, who are and being
Government ‘ There
is no testimony of
the ” omcials merely on
the “1j0iicc ofiicials, unless it is
shown éihgt , ‘ is not worthy of
k«%;xs;~«fa:flkias%%me defects refmred to by we learned
appellant are cexmerncd, 110 dzmht, in
“mg M 1 m by m in me am .
qncemza, reported in 2903 Crl.L.J. 1572, it
founé that non-mentioning of the names of the
V assailants to the doctor is (inc of the circumstances
against the prosecution. In my view, the said ruling
%
an
9
has no application to the case on hand as the; _
and circumstances are entirely dificrent
1:5. As far as the delay in
ocmcemed, the incidmrit took V’
153.1993 and on the very day;
the complaint was a”_r:1′{i on
the fcllowing day atdu injured was
examined I. is not a
factor to V non’ .
1%, As far in despatching the F.z.R. to
the “13 it is only one of the
cfi€t§fi3stancéé” taken note while appreciating
the court will have to be on guamd to
delay in sending the F’.I.R. was an
-V ($1: any attempt to: five a shape to the
V’ ..p1*ma¢c1§tinn mac. The present case is not one where
* iielay in despatching the FIR. to the court has
wfiiven rise to embeliishmant or estimation.
Therefore, tine said gvotmd also dam not appeal to
me. }
18
15;. As far as nommentianing the name of
accused in the wound certificate Ex.P-=1 is
the said omission is _beC8;LiS€;::’_iti “~.tX’1¢ u ‘V
complaint itself, the name of
stated. Likewise, the VA
been mentioned as 1~x_.c.520§ the
head constable having
Badge No.57 an But, he
has 11 cf his
he was working as
a.c:.m;.«5’:>,o Police Station, Bidar.
Thexfefore; that is mentioned in the
is “the….«vexy badge number of P.W.5
witnessw the incident.
Tiiev fiidepenszient witnws P.W.6 not supporting
V. *the_ mse wfll net render the testimony ef
and 5 vulnerabie because, both of them have
V “same out successfully in the course of their crass-
examinatien Without any damage being caused 1:0
their evidenm in substance.
.3»
s-.«’
17. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not w.
merit in this appeal. As far as the
concerned, thoufil the ‘” ‘4 ‘V
appellant submitted that the if
the learned Add}. S.P.P. mfiéijcq me %
by contending that thcs .;Junifs,1=..¥ii*§:nt’ the
ofibnce punishable _thc I.P.C. is
impfisonmem: 4 xfifizich ymrs and
also fine. 1 ‘ I A ‘
13?. _f5’~’-1t; ;iVfo1’esaic1 submission
made is pmscribed for the said
ofi’g:;g1c”e,L..i11 {hevsentence awarded by the trial
‘V considered as unreasoraabie having
and circumstances oi’ the case and,
m¢1era;i¢,%:1o mmrermce is also oalied for m vegan:
V 44 ‘ ” the
‘ In the result, the appeal is dismissed and as the
“Appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled
and he shall f0I’thWith surrender before the trial court
12
to undergo the sentence imposed upon him
trial court shall also take steps to
presence of the appellant for to ‘ff.-1:1’t::tvIr;g:,.e: ‘*
sentence.
eke] –