IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS TI-IE 291R DAY OF' NOVEMBER. PRESENT: ..:gigg,', THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR' " THE HONTBLE MR. JUSTECE :0 1' CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10975 "OF 20oSrr_§A1v '~ 00 0' BETWEEN: State by Kyathasandra"Po}iee. A [By Sri. AND: B.G.Ru'd1*aiah., ' 0 _ S/0 Late Gan;gaoon_n;'ao, = _ 0' . Aged about 4I.~5_years; pg 0' Occupation:rAgri_cu1t;1riat;' V Residing at«..Baddihai-1i,'>.-" Tun;}.kur.Taluk..V_ I Respondent
V .0 ri’;BhagWan, Advocate]
against ‘the Judgment dated 9.12.2004 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court–I, Tumkur, in
“‘_S._C.E.*Jo.23/ 1996 — acquitting the respondent–accused
Afor “the offences Punishable Under Sections 302, 307
d and 506 ofIPC.
._ ” ” 0 ac 9!: >1: :4: =1:
‘ This f;}1’imina1 Appeal is filed Under Section 378 (1)
and” (3)! of ‘Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal
This appeal Coming for hearing on this day,
Keshavanarayana, J., delivered the fo1loWing:–
.4″;
J U D G M E N T p
This appeal by the State is directed agaiiistt-.f_the
judgment and order dated 9.12.2004
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Cilour-t–.IpV iifsj
S.C.No.23/96, acquitting the
the charges levelled u.f0r._ltvheiflfoffelncesl”
punishable under Sevottons of
2. Briefly stated’ is as
under:
PW.E§–Gai1ganimaCff-._1s..,:_–the wife of deceased
ParaIri.eshwaera:a’h’:’son’~.of~Puttaiah. Accused is the son
of one G’-aniigaiah, 4V*Put’taiah and Grangaiah are cousin
brothers. a partition in the family of the
~d’e-ceased ‘an’d___the accused long back and the family
H lbeen partitioned among the sharers. The
accluseldl vvas enjoying the properties which fell to the
if * share of his father in the partition and subsequently he
sold half of the properties in favour of one Nanjappa and
other half of the property was settled in favour of his
first wife. Nevertheless, the accused instituted a civil
-14
accused ran away from the place. PW.5__._”and
Parameshwaraiah were shifted to the District
Tumkur while PW.6 was taken to Shridetflri’ V’
Tumkur for treatment. In the ‘”hospital,
Parameshwaratah breathed his aeoount.
injuries while PW.5 was trea’te:dV–as inpatient; Thereafter
PW.4 lodged the which “base was
registered and up. During
investigation; dead body and
later the to post mortem
conducted the post
morterh –~l,.;_:opi’ned that the death was
dueto gheriiorrhage shock as a result of injury to
{ii/ifgil olrgans llilievleft lung and liver. It appears the
aecuse.d”‘V..a}so’-h~ad sustained some injuries and he was
also the hospital and was treated by PW.17~
Drg.Mru-thyunjaya. After completing the investigation
it sheet Came to be laid.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty for the
charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
@
The prosecution in order to bring home the gu_i__1t of
the accused examined PWs.1 to 23, got”
Ex.P.1 to 13.19 and M.Os.1 to 12. The ‘
accused was that on that da.y~~’th.e in
with PWs.4. 5 and othershtresfjassed
at about 9.00 p.m., assauited hirng his is
house and also hoti’sehc»’id’V_ thereafter
assaulted his__Wife and in the
scuffle the PWs.4 and 5
sustained.mjhnriiesi ‘wielding weapons held by
themselves of the group. It was
also his d’efence’V«.th–.a»’t”in respect of this incident, his
fiieedya corripiaint based on which the police
case. Thus according to the defence
oi” “-«4the__v’acc1ised, the deceased and others caused
injnries’. to him and that the deceased as also others
“‘sii’stained injuries on account of their own acts.
4. After hearing both sides and on assessment
of oral and documentary evidence, the learned
.. .. _ ap.p&1I;._c _
Sessions Judge, by the judgment under appeal,
acquitted the accused of the charges levelled”
him holding that the prosecution has
the charges levelled against
doubt. Being aggrieved thejsaid
acquittal, the State is in
5. We have iieafggi –‘_:§r§.vl\l.’C’:s.,Sainpangi Ramaiah,
learned High .V.Court-~ Vp:”l?Il’eader for the
appellant learned counsel
appeairing flrelsponldent–accused. We have
perused the examined the oral and
documenta’r3rV_:tevidencelland read the judgment under
Q:SriliVN..S~.Sampangi Ramaiah, learned High Court
0?
Governirient Pleader submitted as under:
“That the judgment under appeal suffers from
l’-‘perversity or illegality as the learned Sessions Judge
-has disbelieved the evidence of the material eye
Witnesses on irrelevant grounds, as such the judgment
/’\
under appeal is erroneous; that the reasonings adopted
by the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the
of PWs.5 and 6 who are injured eye ”
perverse and cannot be a;c’ce’ptedf_4 _th”a~t VIn.ino’r.
discrepancies in the evidence “of t–rn’ateria.1
could not have been mader”»–basis their”
testimony; that the ..__iearn”ed: ‘”‘Ju’dge has
committed error in hoiding has not
properly the person of
the ‘it is submitted that
though” indicates that the
accused injuries, it is not shown by
the ,accuse”(1._:Vthat’ he sustained those injuries in the
incidents as stated’ by the prosecution Witnesses,
there’fore..,v”rionfiexplanation of the injuries on the person
of “»._the__v’ ‘accused could not have been a material
oircurnstance to discard their testimony; that the
‘~1_earned Sessions Judge has committed serious error in
-V-‘holding that the injuries found on the deceased as well
as the injured eye-Witnesses PWs.5 and 6 could not
have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1, therefore
gros;i.r1d_li’isV made___out to interfere with the judgment
undier-._’app,eal_;_ that the evidence of the material
they arelali inimical witnesses, therefore their testimony
A Cf hasloeen rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge;
the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judgecalls
for interference by this Court. 9
7. On the other hand, ‘
justify the judgment under as
under: V V l l V V
That the learned J.u.dge_’_,
appreciation of the oralV_andt’doccumen_ta1*yl evidelnce, has
recorded a finding of material
witnesses and having
of evidence, the
finding’ Sessions Judge cannot
be termed’ as either” perverse or illegal, therefore no
vvitiiiesseslljSuffers from discrepancy, inconsistency and
that the evidence on record having proved the presence
of injuries on the person of the accused, it was duty of
the prosecution to have explained the injuries found on
the body of the accused and since the prosecution has
failed to do so, the case of the prosecution
rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions-;§l’ud.gei.:lth,atiA V’
since the material witnesses have not
as to how the accused sustained injuries.
reasonable to hold that they’ not full
truth and they have~..lied’.VAlon*da; of the
incident, as such been rightly
discarded by that in the
light of that the injuries
foundjonl as on the persons of
V6′ caused by a weapon like
the” of the prosecution has been
. rigfitlyi’glisbelievedlllby the learned Sessions Judge and
tlk1.erefo:re.vvthe-jildgment under appeal does not call for
int’erference by this Court.
A. 8: “In the light of the above, the points that arise
for our consideration are,
(1) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is
justified in acquitting the accused of the
charges levelled against him’? and
/1
sarnc .vo1°«.._evidence, the Appellate Court should not
View to the View formed by the trial Court.
it which ‘favours the accused should be adopted. Keeping
well-settled principles in mind, we shall consider
“lithe case on h nd. ”
a ‘
IO
(2) Whether the judgment under appeal__.__
suffers from any perversity or i1legality”..’_’li~.V_
calling for interference by this Court_?””’- «’ » it
9. We are conscious of the fact thaththisi appeal K
the State is against the judgmentllof’
as to the scope of interferenieielby mCourt
with the judgment ‘well The
Appellate Court judgment of
acquittal i.sv;3–.g1ioi2.{2;11p’:_tlifiat.’tlfifjudgment suffers
from account of improper
consideration.’v.*vof_u_fthe ‘ or non–consideration of
the material It is also well settled
thatglmereiyl be§a’use’ another View is possible, on the
If two are possible, it is well settled that the View
a urvedadpon like l\/1.0.1, therefore, user of
“n_ot,:.i~~established as such, the case of the
agccused was that he sustained injuries on account of
d assaulted by the deceased and the injured Witnesses
11
10. Perusal of the judgment under appeal
indicates that the learned Sessions Judge has
three reasons for acquittirig the accused-j:naniely,”u
evidences of PWS.-4. S and 6 are
discrepant and they being
deceased are highly interested» as.” su.ch,d’highly’V’
unsafe to place relianxce (ii) the
material witnesses it the injuries
found on have lied on
material therefore, their evidence
canncgtdhe ettiddence of the Doctor would
clearly’ind’icate.:th’at.tthe injuries found on the deceased
as Well as tuon_:vthe7′ persons of PWs.5 and 6 could not be
pro««secu’tion’ highly suspicious and doubtful.
.113 As already stated supra, the defence of the
after they trespassed into his house. No doubt, during
@
14
PW.l7. Thus, the accused has not probablised’ the
theory that he sustained injuries at the
deceased, PWs.4 and 6 in the incident
present case. Therefore, though’
establishes that the accused:»A:’«haA.-dd’
irljuries in the night not
circumstance to indicate “sustained
those injuries in the deceased as
well as Under these
circumsta5’ices’;’_pi the learned Sessions
Judgeluislv disbleilieving the evidence of
PWs.4lv”toV’–6 on «that they have not explained
the injuries” on person of the accused.
‘It islldvvell settled law that testimony of
be discarded only on the ground that
he’,’,she.~is_via’ close relative of the victim or the deceased.
However”, evidence of such witnesses will have to be
it vclo-sedly scrutinized before accepting the same to rule out
-«the possibility of false implication. In the case on hand,
there is no dispute that a civil suit filed by the accused
16
the evidence clearly establishes that on 22.11.1995 at
about 9.00 p.m. deceased Parameshwarajah,
PW.5 and PW.6 sustained injuries in an 1′
in Baddihalli village and imrnediaiK€1p_Y’1:.1A.1
Parameshwaraiah and his
District Hospital at Tumkur:.rj1d:i:i©’hileA.”P\?\Z..’€;…wzasitaken to”
Shridevi Hospital, it the injured
Parameshwaraiah in the
hospital. As deceased had
sustained5’as1:iii_anv’— and according
to Doctor, dueutov hemorrhage and shock
as a result– of Vital organs like left lung and
liver, H Thus the deceased was homicidal.
evidence 1oi”11l?3W.1’7–Dr.Murthunjaya and the
certificate EX.P.9 would clearly
establish PW.5 was examined in the District
Hopspitai’ at about 9.45 p.m. on 22.11.1995 when she
was-dbrought to the hospital with history of assault by
-~-Rudraiah (accused) and she was found having
sustained four incised wounds on Vital parts. According
to the Doctor, injury No.3 namely incised wound over
Police. llilhlerefore, we do not find any delay in
r._.1od.gir;g:”theeonaplainant. The complaint is spontaneous
ll'”‘–__l”circun’1s.tance to bring out that PW.4 had any
-deliberations and consultations with any other persons
by utilizing some time he falsely implicated the
V accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is consistent
20
hospital for treatment. PW.4 has spoken about the
complaint lodged by him. As per the
EXP. 1 1–FIR. the compiaint was lodged at
22. 1 1. 1995. The incident oeciirred. at it it
in Baddihalli village which is atl’a_’
kms from the Police Statiori-it”*~After’ the Was’
the immediate concernzxof g the ‘brother of the
deceased and husband.e_’oi”l the injured
persons to medical
attention –the Police Station to
lodge shifting the injured
persons to after coming to know that
his brother ‘has’ died’; he proceeded to lodge a complaint
one, ‘I_’he_3aVccused has not been able to bring out any
with the contents of the compiaint lodged by him. No
&/
27
surrender himself before the court below forthwith.
Upon such surrender, the learned Sessions Judge shall
commit the accused to prison for serving the sentence. ”
‘_fiJLH)q;Egsh*h
RS/* V