1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF IQRRNATAKA AT BAN
DATED1$Hs11n:3oWiDAY(x?JULY2QG9 ffw7r"
PRESENT _WmM
THEHONBM3MR&m$nCEK}3&®bHAfiRA0f)f
'nfl2HoNBLEwHLJUSHcEC£§KUMARASWAMY
CHUNHNALzu%%ygjNQ,55z¢:0Q6
BEFNEEN: - w =
Aged abou? 484"y§:'é1'rs. . ' '
S/0 G0Vindé1})f)ai«1.;:.V_ V _ _
AgricuItu19ist.5fvfg:g/o'i"Kutec.g1'r11p _
Tarikere [Pa'€Se'i1£1-yérsgsidlfig ' '
T.G. K1'is11114a~inu3ii'}1'y f; . "
At Rampura V1-I1a'g¢:V)._ *
Shixraji S / 0 " E 3;;1vr112141v'1r1é1'.
Aged' 23' ~3Jea1*s "
.' ' -.C0'o]1'"e. ?-R/ O .K()t.eceifiip
Naganga.§.K:'
S / __'l'. G; 'Kri.S1'1 mam L1rt':i'1y
Aged 28Ayea1*s
" "*AgriCu}1".:i1*istj, R/0 Ranlpurd
A V. f '»Vi1'1a«gc , 'i'a1fike1fe
,9
Umesha
S/0 T.G. Kris1mamurt'hy
Aged 25 year's. Coolie
R/0 Rampura Village
Ta1'ikere
Smt. Pazrvathamrlla
W/0 T.G. Krishnamurthy
Aged 40 years
Ag1'ieultur'1'si:, R/0 Koteeamp
Tarikere
Lokesh @ Gidda
S / 0 Thimnlegowda
Aged 22 years, Cook
R/0 Koteeamp. 151 Crogss
Tarikere '
Manja @e.M2i11j_tfir1*.:-gt_h_a A'
S / 0 K1;ish11'app31
Aged 2O years '
Ag1~1e_ult.u:'is1: 2
R/0 It.tige'xr:11e;Vge,' '.ra;:;'ke;"-.:e
, A Sornép @ _LSr):1121sheka_If.&
AV 0"'I,l211{9;'hn'm_11a. 18 years
Q Coolie. /'0' 'D_i'b.bada Hatti
'Kc)£.ee¢1mp--§_I.af$-ix -'Cross
'i'a1'ikere. ' - f * '
..; Appellants
S1*1'.y"ufhs: AH. Bhagavan éiz A.N. Radhakrishna W
A _ Advocates)
4/
JUDGMENT
The material facts of the proseemion case discloses that
there was dispute between PWMI on the one part: .ar1~d0~the
accused No.1 on the other part regarding .
possession and oult1’v21tion of tank-bed” e11’ea.’ir”I of”
Rampura village. On 30.8.2002 at
Abdul Gafter — PVK/W28 S/o. PW;’1′;~._Rellanlatlhje:lrr’r:._:4»PW/W27* ”
W/0. PW-1, deceased Mehegboob P.asl~1a’Sv/0. .PW:_1,VA.deeeased
Tahasheel Pasha. the neiglhbflouri1:g.VAileoi’dVowrl4:r were in the
land bearing Sy.No.2._2′. in the charge
sheet alongwith’ one’:’;’3Li1’ye£;–d._”Sonia, Ramesha and Naveen
wielding deadly’ wea.po1is (:r>r:1e..”‘t.o ‘the land, ()lJjCC'{‘ the emiry of
l?’\_l_’f.-.1 and’-i–:)tl1e.1’s in t’;l1e«d_i_spL1tecl land.
…’l’he’~lé1<:e'1e1–sed persons who were wielding deadly
:1lV..AAweapori:3.lsleverelljfi, V-eissault PW-1. PW-27, PW-28, Mehaboob
_v:l?_e1sl1.e_§, d€'(§€2liuS'f:Cl No.1(for short: 'DI'} and one 'l'ahasheel
.deC~ez1sed No.2(for short 'D2']. The injured were l'.E:tl{t'1'"i
'tifo–._"Covernmerfi. hospital, 'l'aril0L1t the adrnission of MLC___case.
The PSI comes to the hospital. The statement: of
recorded at EXP]. The same is registered as FIR.
3. The D} is taken to Naiiiappeg iiii4t)sI_)iitfaT!’4 (vpr.ij\>:e1fe&
clinic] at Shimoga and he suc(:un1bec:i1t(5–.the iiij.1,i.1’=ies. i’n_”‘t.1″ie._
hospital on 2.9.2002. The D2, ivereii
taken to Kasturba I~iospita},.,.A/Ia;ii1;5eii’v..:’eziid.’D2asi;1eet’iinbec1 to
the injuries on 31.8.2002 PW427 and
PW28 were t1’€,’8.t(*3d:_ report: of D2
discloses that Cumulative effect of
multiple he PM report of D1
discloses ti12it;.iie of shock and haemorrhage
as a 1’eSL1H; of Q)? sik-Lii’}”‘.:iVB0t:11 the deaths are said to be
t ‘itiiiei course of invest:igati()h, at the
vo11ih–i;éiry the weapons is/10.1 ~ sickle, M02 ~«
jmnharidie to MO.6 ~ chibs said to be used for the
“”c:6ir’1*i.rfiisseion tfifithe offence are reeoverecl under the mahazar.
V”«_’B1dod’~st.ain”ed weapons and blood stained articles are sent to
%/
{)
FSL for exami1’1atio11. The se1’13j’
further reveals that D1, PW-1, P1′-f\7¥’27«t glhd
assaulted in the first phase of the a.ss2a1A:’L:1t;b:’bV_3A’/
later on after some interval, D2 wasfissautte-dhtby
T he accused except A4 and areh’e}i’afgr~3jd-tb1′ eetfihrriitting the
offences U/Ss. 143, 148, 44?,-1448;7323.@:_tts.t;:4,t;%%324, 307, 302
r/W See. a1ufeVVVv'(§harged for Committing
offence U /s. h’s.0’7=–115c–.
4. _ T116 I§1*C.S:Ve£:u.tioi’1 examined PW- E, PW~27 and
P3. ~28 &t,c3’e—-p’1′<3~Ve the assatitlht on them by the aecruseci anti aiso
to the D1. PW-3, PW~I_2 and PW~14 are
examined-«..t0 prove the assauit on B2 by the accused persons.
giboyfe witnesses are eye~w'itnesses to the i_1:1(:ident:. The
V"«.v'tIr1'2:'_iie._C'e1;I1'–iI' on the basis of the testimony of the irljured
I
witnesses and eye-witnesses PW–l. PW-27 and PW-28 and
the eyewitnesses PW-3, PWA12 and PW–l4 (:o1'1viet.eciV
A-8 for offences U/Ss. 143. 148, 447, 326. 307 _E'§1;1Ci' –
Sec. 149 IPC. The accused are in appea»l~;
5.
appellant/accused poimed oL1t.-.._vL’t’h_e fol.l.owi;1g’, VVi:Eis”C1’elpa11tl”
Sri AH. Bhagawan, the –._
circumstances in the eviczlenee of ,t;1IC’-prOuS’€CL1t,iO’1″IVT’O”?iSSE1il the
order of C01’lViCf.iO1’12
(11
In the the on each of the
vieti1f1″ é1.11clf.llthe” ‘of::oveJ*t act of each of the
aeet1s’e.gl:”-isigljot. The FIR eryptieally
statesll along with four other named
21z(A3f3£’1S€Vd ~ weapons, committed
asséiult, on’ ~l?W_/l’;…l~*lPW-27, PW-28 and on the D}
and D2;-..’l’he_avermems in the FIR gives a
e’ategQ”1<.i(:21l impression izhat. assault. on the D1, D2
'otl1.e35~ 1'r1jured is done simultaneously at the
' sa_rn'e~'i.pla(:e and time. However, in the course of
' j1*luest:igat.ioI1. the LO. has given twist to the
V' 'A pf<)seeL:t.i()1'1 theory to make it that Pwel, PW–27._
PW~28 and D1 were assault,ed in the first phase
and they were tals:en to the hospital. The acécuseci
(ii)
(iii)
v (iv)
later on go to the land of D2 and assaulted___hin’1.
PW}, PW27 and PW28 are not sh(>w1i1_lto”._Vbe
witnesses to the incident of assault b,L_i’i;,
according to the FIR they are the
incident of assault on D2.
En the FIR AM1 to A-Sjsand
be the assailants. H¢\x:§v»<ee;- the the 'V
charge sheet e1g§1i11st: A_a__1u:'i:o A35 others
who are arrexyedl—..sg= to are not shown
to be accused i1j1"_t;l1e 5f?'ov.i,1ii'._';vol'he1's who are
shown not sent for
t1"ia.l.:. ' l' '
who are supposed to
of assault: on B2 are
not i1_e_m1edlla._sllwitonesses in the FIR.
*l1:PW'- l PW'-"27…_a.nd PW-28 in tiheir evidence deposed
to that A-1 and A-2 wielding clubs and
chopper assaulted PW–1. Al to A-3
as_sa.1.:1'ljtekl PW-28 and later on assaulted PW~27
who comes to the rescue. The D} who Comes to
AA rescue was assaulted lastly by A-1 and A-2
"with clubs and A-3 with chopper. A-4 and A-5
9
orally abated the assault. They do not iiidiilge in
assaii1t.i’11g t.he victim. V i
In the FIR lodged it is categorically st’ate(:1
and A6 also assaulted the iI1_jLlf(j’-C1′”i).::i’.. a’n:d«AD2:
But. in the evidence t_here-V” is a’prevai-iea’i.ie1j§V’No;
overt. acts of assault are e’1t.i:.1*i¥:_)’L1i’t/_§3.(f1 to a,1’ici
With regard to the zissaiii.t.V’0:1_ D2: that
A-1. AB and A+:L.,.fc}sse1.vt1’i’tee1§’jéxxtitehéeluhs’; btit in the
Ci’0ss–eXaminatieh’h’_P’.7V-..3§’»Vstatesf,t1*iat his land is
situated about e11’e».:’ffem the scene.
By the “a’1’t’:)r1e assaulted D2.
PW+ IQ statement in
tihehiif ‘eVi{d_e11e7’e’thatflihe aeeused beat D2 with axe,
siLr_ki’e 2:1_1vc’i~:”A<:1Libf=._Tije said witness does not
att:ri'bt1te_stfieeifie' ()t_f'€l'l acts with refereiice to each
j of the viet.,in'1'.V
of the above discrepant ei1'eumstia;riees,
that evidence of PW-3. PWMIZ and
eonsidered as eye witnesses to the incident
mi D2 and their evidericte is eoiicoeted. The
-e’v.i__deI1ee with regarci to assault. on {)2 is contrary to the
version in the FIR. It is £1,:rt,l’1e1* argued that the four named
accused in the FIR have been given up \vit.l’10ut any valid
reason. The AW6 to A8 who are not named in the FIR,a1’e
implicated in the case which shows deliberate fab1*i;.r.:ajiir).’1*;.e-arid
eoneoetiori on the part of the 1.0. In that view’,.ll”a1fg1i_edl” that
the conviction on the basis of (:or1(:0=f:t,ed_ 4evid«en*e.e._is,}:xald
law. In the alternative, it is contended tliiat’vabsolute.ly the’;rel’is:’é
no evidence against A-4 to A8.
7. Heard the learned VSHPP’. L. _ 3
8. of the evideriee 0r1
record, we find that :éi’eVs:iift;iei.e11t mate1’i_a1 in the charge
sheet againsts Aiél a11dl}\«.l5,l_t’l1ere is no charge against them for
a.r:1_VV0fte11c;e1gUfs. trial Judge has framed the
c:lV1.arlg’e. a”‘l’lel:.:{ri3._sy way. which shows the lack of basic
k11o{v1.e’tige ‘ rfiji trial.
9.’. ‘.V’V’li’j_e§’.ide11ce of PW}, PW27 and PW28
llv(.?3t9§0TiC'<1l13¥f diss(:£Lm1t it was Ami and A-2 with clubs
assaulted them and D1 and A43 assaulted them and D} with
Chopper. The overt acts are attributed only to A~l to A3. ‘”I’ he
said witnesses also states that A-4 and A-5 ii1st:iga1tecl,4″‘BVL1t
that version is totally in contradiction with the
where A-4» and A6 are also atti”ibut.ed>”wit:l1 ti*ie”i/fert””acits ‘*
assault on the injured and Di and D2,, ‘.E’}fte ..ii11V0.lve1ii€~:nt’oi'”:é’a;:’
4 and A5 in the incident. becoines.__d0Lib1;_tLil.
Similarly the involvement. of A6 t()_._Av}’8,’als0 beCe.ifries_7Cl0ubtful
to be believed because theyare assailants in
the FIR. The one arelwho l’1″12:Jf;hV€ .%3’IRVV’haVe been given
up and thosvelltifheiaife aiie”‘iniplieat.ed. In that view.
the order to A-8 appears t:0 be bad
in law in so PW}, PW27 and PW28 and
Causing’ ‘:r_3i”‘I9__l. lllll it it
°\3.Iith:”1″e’ga.i~”d to the assault. on 132, the witnesses
*.__x’PW–3, PW_¢}i2v’ein(fl” PW~14 are not named as eye witnesses in
E§t’1.t.:PW~1, PW–27 and PW–28 are said to be the
V”«.V”witf1ies-sesto the assault on D2. The assault 011 D1 and D2
°l/
Sl’lOV\7I] to have t_al<:en place simult.a1e1e0usly anal at the same
time in the FIR. Tlle theory and ma1'1ner of assalm: Q1j17.I_)l2 as
per evidence is c()nt'1"ary to the vers1'o1'1 in the FIR.:..llljlélllf-lfjéfifrfe' _
evidence of PW3, PW12 and PWl4 cannot b_e "~
eye-xvimesses to the assault on D2. :'t;l'l1'e, cohv1'lC:t:i'o__1T*njl
Al to A8 U/s. 302 me for ctaL1slf;g-..dealll'1~..df ms lgm/s.lf
and the same is set aside. Hoyx'/_e'ver'.V, the 'above fievidenee
elinchingly establish the plre–se11ceL21cts of Al to A3
and they are liable conV'1'c'ii.ldnl'U)'.S.l for causing'
death of D1 fcr–..aetvempHtl11g to cause death
of pwa, PW2'7llé1:1d.:?W23§."
11. the trial Judge has
committed a blLi”11de1’vV.vh’1ll’-lldll giving separate and disti1’1ct
e1d1’s1.\ficti(5I2 .in*.”e1’espe<tt 0fh1u1'de1' of D} and D2 sepa1'at.ely. It
maybe ifhat. of D2 is homicidal since the evidence of
l"[PV3/'3, PW.12 APW14 is re._jecied, eyewfmess to the
Hifil creclible. We hold that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the acieused with regard to 111_L11'de1'
DBIC
12. For the reasons and discussion made .;iE)0$.Ie.’ “1ilile,”V V’
appeal is partly allowed.
13. A-I to A3 are eo1’1viet1ed re; ef’f’e1″1ee’~.TJ’;/S.-:”3.(§2._VV
r/W See. 34 IPC for causing V.ar1d_g:;ei?i::l;§i:;+c;%%c1 toll’
inlprisonment for life and “p§1y fine l§’s…_1O,O’OVU/ivveaeh, in
default 31. for a period of one
14. Awl to :.:::0r1___’J_iv.r;E’£,ec1AA«’f:<'Ji'1'-..e§pTfAoll"er1c:e U/s. 307
1'/W See. 34 IPC3Se-jj;1.l'éifely:"r51}leaehluegoullt for attempting to
cause n'1u1*dvefl'l5i"PW_1, and sentenced to R1.
for a period yearél fine of Rs. 10000/– each in
default SI. for «.per.ioelofA1;w(a…'§g§ree11's. A1 to A3 eac:11 shall pay
exggregatca?-fine' of ~ ee1(:l1 for alztemptillg to cause
lam;-d:er.Qt: pwl, M27 and PW28.
e’_.l’5:e_”?E’vh«:3 e6mflg:t.ion of Aw-31 to A8 U/s. 1302 UPC for
° »._eausi11g.deé1th A()’ff’D 15′ i idC-