T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
T K Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka By … on 8 November, 2010
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Dated this the 3"' day of November, 2010 %

B efo re

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HU1.Uv:4p1 G_.RAfi.fEvSH::  _ Q "  

Criminal Appeal 1886 / 2003 C/w Crimifial Revis:£0ri<.Per'i:tio}i" 

In Crl.A 1886/2003  

1 T K Rajgopai, 32 yrs
S/0 late P N Krishnappa

2 Srinivas, 34 yrs:  _  :_
S/0 M Govi1jd3pp_a?IfV_V_  " '

3 Chandiu, 28  M 
S/0 M Go&vin_cI:1ppaV  

4 Shivaji,25 y'rsj  - V %
S/0 QO"v'indappa'» , _ " V

 ' Sid Eaie" P N Ktfishnagapa

 "  T. K "Ra

S/0"«3_ate  N. K1-ishnappa

" "   T K Reti'n2{chandra, 26 yrs

" S/V()L"l--z;1't:3 P N Krishnappa

   3? K'Munir21ju, 34 yrs

"   S/0 Eats P N Krishnappa



9 T H Rutire Gowda, 37 yrs
S/0 Halmme Gowtia

(By Sri M T Nanaiah Asst$., Adv. for 6 & 9;
Sri S K Venkata Raddy, Adv. for 2-4; Smt S

Susheela, Adv. for 1,5,7 & 8)
State of Karnataka -- by

Vidyaranyapura Police Station
Ban gaiore

(By Sri G M Srinivasa Reddy, GP') _

In Crl.RP 68/2004

N anjappa S/0 late RaI'[j1£l'E{'t"i:SI.'.1'1£1})[:.'._E1 g 

Bhairaveshwara Ni_1.a--yav 4' 

Sapthagiri Layout, "~/_idy:a1'atiVyapufia"1:': « '


(By Sri Satish G'Ra4ikar,'Ady:§y3\t'  


 L S/oi iate"P_N ,I<~rjs'imappa

S/ON G-:_)vi1id'appa

"   Chandru;"f%2 yrs

'. SV/(_) Govindappa

V $hivaji, 29 yrs
' '"S/() N Govindappa






S T K Devaraj, 34 yrs
Sfo T N Krishnappa

6 T K Raghu, 36 yrs
T N Krishnappa

7 T K Ramachandra, 30 yrs
S/0 T N Krishnappa   

8 T K Muniraju, 38 yrs
S/0 Krishnappa

9 T H. Rudre Gowda, 41 yrs
S/0 Hanume Gowda

10 N Govindappa, 60 yrs   s ;
Slo Moiappa    _  '

11 M'NanjapDa,   
S/0 M0tz1PDۤ{4    =  '

12 R chafidpa§pa,'e4'y~§s"9«.9'   
S/0Rama1eh »   ,9 
Rama_chandr'apura,V B;_1nge_l01'e'

1'3"  _ C1"rij1:I392¢p?;;f-f?.:13'...r37   ---------- -« "
 V 819 Ramajah' 

 A11'9_-are "z/5"«*3,£fhi§{¢iV:Vr;i Village
Bayngaiorey ' ' 9-   Respondents

  T Nans1vi99a';1 Assts., for R1,, 5~9;
 "Sri'B 'V?eerappa'; Adv. for R2--4 & 10)

.9   is fiied under S374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

  '9:r.99p--r:1yingr§ to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 18.12.2003 and
' '  1'9,V12;2003 in SC 336/1999 by the Fast Track Court II, Bangalore.


Revision is filed under S. 397 & 401, Cr.PC to enhance the
sentence awarded in SC 336/1999 on 18.12.2003 by the Fast Track
Court 11, Bangaiore.   

The Appeai and Revision coming on for Hearing this  '

delivered the following:


The appeal is directed against the order of the FaSVE”;1ft’30k.C(1’tlFiV’

r1, Bangalore City in sc 336/1999 on 181:I2._:2003 cdn~.zi.c’iin’g accused i
to 9 and sentencing them for the pnniis«h_ab_1e.under 144,
148, 506 B, 307 IPC to undergo i17npris–on.rnenta’n’dV.aiso«iihposing fine.

According ;tU the Vidyaranyapura Police filed
charge sheet against” thirteeinciciaccused before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate,};:B1anga1ore1ifo–r1the offences under S..143, 144, 148, 506 B,

307, ., As per the evidence on record, on 23.8.1997,

in connection in/ith-._th’e”spot inspection, the Deputy Cornmissioner had

visited land in “Sy.N§$.77 of Tindlu Viliage which according to PW 2 the

-._inju_1’e,d,’ was in his cultivation and occupation pursuant to the order of the

:_Land Trihunal granting occupancy rights. it appears, as per the defense

‘ ‘ version, against the order of the Land Tribunal, there was also a stay


order. The said land is an inam land of Anjaneya Devaru of Tindlu
Village of which the accused and other relatives are said to be owners
and got the land for the Temple since the time of their forefathers.

According to the defense, the villagers were using the land for theirright

of way to reach the temple. En this regard. there was a disputepyand»a:l’soja” V

public interest litigation was filed by some of the accused seeleiiigi’

direction to get the right of way to reach the ._W_hen’

Deputy Commissioner visited the spot, : he is saidto have-“made” soprnée»

inquiries. At that time, some scuffle is said to haveV”ta.keri -place, as per
the version of the prosecution iand defenses’-and,i”som.e persons were

injured. However; pm. in connection with
the morning incident(23;’8.Vl’?)97:)4 right of way over Sy.No.77 of
which the_f§njut*ed lirishnappa was in cultivation, it is alleged,
assaulted PW 2, PW 3 ~ Vishwanath

S/o Ki’ish-n_app’a<ar1d_ it W Nanjappa by deadly weapons like choppers

and clubsi""*–The_se accused 1 to 11 as well as the injured witnesses are the

of Tindlu Village. PW 1 Kariappa being the son–in–law of PW

It 2 _w~ho"can1e: to know about the morning incident and who is a resident of

T neigli'l'ioring village i.e., Kodigehalli, came to Tindlu Village and is said

to have witnessed the incident, lodged a complaint. Based on ___the

comptaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the"aht2–ve'–,V

said offences before PW 16 — Ramaiah who was thenjthe

Inspector of Vidyaranyapura Police Stati()n..»~~._The

registered around 8.10 pm. Later, he sent the ZFIRL-Q 3C

of offence on the next day morning andhco'n.ducteid" the "0ffeIi;C€
panchanama as per Ex.P2. ".E'he__ scene jAQfi:V{:3A'1?1;cnc.ejA of the
house of PW 2 _ Krishnappa ant1"tii:at.is'A'a_ 1piih.1_:e"';§§;iiV: crfrindiu Village.
On the spot, the investigating oi*t'ice"r– pieces, mud
samples and the statement of

several witnesses counter complaint under
S.107, Cr.i3C in.__Cripme agaisnt the injured and other
persons. Later, Hospital where the injured were
the statement of the injured persons.

He has also material objects i.e., more than 40, at the

_ii”‘Vii1stance o’f«..the V_a’c’cused; the blood stained clothes of the injured persons

one Tata Suhio vehicle under mahazar. He has also recorded the

V”._V”voluntarystatement oi’ the accused. Subsequently, investigation was

‘VVC.C:)’T§”l’plf.3~’.~V(E’,C1 by another investigating officer and he has filed the charge

sheet. Since the offence under S307, }PC is triable by the Sessions

Court, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Coartr.–.:”fi7he’

Fast Track Court IE on such assignment, held trial after frannng ‘7 ‘

against the accused since they pleaded not..gnil.!ey« ofy

offences. The prosecution in all, examined about iseventeen–.witnesses

and got marked about twenty six
D2 and MOs l to 47. However, “split against
the 14″‘ accused since he was heard the
arguments, while {iessions Court has

convicted accused;’l’to_~9V under S.l43, 144,

I48, 506 B and 3_O’_73 _yVAgai21st”~tne order of conviction and sentence

rendered by the ‘trial court, acc’used.are ‘before this Court in appeal.
Heard the counselVrepresenting the respective accused as also the

:’f:io*a,:e_rnrr:t3_1;i°r Pgulepader and the-eeunsel appearing for the revision petitioner

*4 I 2004 who is seeking for enhancement of

. Md
sentence awarded.’ ~ v

The specific allegation against the accused is that, on 23.8.1997

around 6.30 p..m. in front of the house. of PW 2 Krishnappa, the accuesed

being members of the unlawful assembly, attempted to comn1:it–.njuirciieéf

of Krishnappa holding deadly weapons like, iron rods,_.schloppe£s”and i

spade, threatened the injured with dire conseq3;ienceesg,l fTh.e accusedalso, f

dragged out Krishnappa from his car, abused himland”assaul.te7dthim’. 2
The argument of the appellant’s co.un::sel is that,’the”v1″‘–ancl”‘lO”‘

accused in order to protect the property o.f*t”ne.. have ‘filed-as public

interest litigation. Apart from that, ‘the villagers iriaking use of the

land in Sy.No}77 to Anjaneya Devaru Temple, which

land was claimedahy occupation and it is an inam
land. There was agdisptite in respect of the land in question as the
land tonbxlttzrai “D€}}2?…1’£}l}6IlE. As the injured and others were
oljstructingethej way in this regard, especially on the holy

Satutday in the~fioiitl1.io’3’7–lShravan, the people gathered there asserted the

.yiVright of way anclin itheiscuffle, some incident must have taken place and

_4l_fn_1allicated falsely and rather, the material

evidenee’«o_n record, clear that at the time of incident, more than
hundred .;;ierseo.n’s»–._wei*e._p_i:esen1 and even as per the spot mahazar and

,,,.,_,evidence’ ofisonie.ef_ the witnesses, there were several material objects

‘7’a__’likechoppei’s. and clubs found and, as is stated by one of the witnesses,

fitiielfe-,,wras:a a mob gathered and the incident has taken place in connection



with asserting right of way over the land in Sy.No.77, to reach the

Ternpie. it is also submitted, there is a delay in reaching the

at all the incident has taken place around 10.30 am. in whieh§’_:i5VV”i _

been injured as stated by him, there was no impediment for’the:fa,to’sfileVa

complaint even when the police came to their house.” .. in ctanneetioiri ,W«i.th<1i_'

the dispute over the Eand, complaint waziifiled by the iiiijjurediipersonjs and i

there is a case and counter case, In the___4ab:;ence_p of corroboration, the
version of these witnesses who va"r~¢.\i:§;ai,d'i~.to eye witnesses to
the incident, the version_rof_. the evidence on
record, is not iiiiithe offence.

It is further’ made out by the defense the way
in which the accused have several injuries must have been
found on pptheihegdy of Except one simple injury said to
the injured in the evening as per the medical

evideiiirqc-i;’i”.tly1e “veirz-;io1i.i’oi””the injured PW 3 himself falsifies the version

N that he hassuffered “injury in the morning. Even regarding shifting of the

touthe hospital is concerned, PW 9 has not supported the version

of_&the”.ih§ured. The injuries are not fatal in nature. Accordingly, it is


submitted, the injured have sustained injuries in a commotion where

more than hundred people were gathered asserting right of way andjthe

overt act attributed against each of these accused falsifies the it

prosecution itself. Learned counsel also relied upon the

Supreme Court in Rehmat Vs State of Harj{ana…–h-Z All’

Criminal Law Reporter 231 wherein the Apex Court has i:.ei*a.;,. when

injuries suffered by the appellant is exuplainediiand also the

» 2′

-(,../«…U% .9?

® failed to name the as does inspire
the confidence of the court order was set
aside. Relying upon that the injured
themselves ttie.j>'[aoct<)r_' the history of the injury
suffered by thenijthat,' assaulted by strangers which
falsifies theécase of rather supports the version of the
jvirijuries taken place while the people were

asseri'injg"tfight""reach the Temple through the land that too on a

Saturday Viwheie devotees were good in number and they have asserted

'1'i.g§,'iit.jagaitnst injured PW 2 who was asserting right over the land in

"V que~s£ion 'asan occupant.



Per contra, Government Pleader submitted, the evidence of the

injured who are witnesses to the incident, has to be believed aswtecthe

overt act attributed against the accused over PWs 2, 3 and


injured persons. Except discrepancies here and there v<.,.–,c.h'fare"-in the vi"

nature of minor contradictions, the overt act attributed by them 'ag'ai;1st:.,.A

the accused is corroborating each othe.r.and__the accused ar-::'guil.ty of tlhel

offences. Rightly, the trial court has convicted andojsentenfced the

accused which does not call for int_e:rference;,_' . "

Counsel for the Revision P_etitioner' –_.j.l5W..U4'.__Nanjappa has

submitted that there is'i5t:~orrohorat,ipng evidence against the accused. PW

4, the injured hasbeen assaulted_4a"n_d"lre has sustained grievous injuries.
The senten:;e"avvarded-» bythe trial court has to be enhanced and the
accused have be punished rigorousiy and a lenient view shall not be

tal<en"." ._ , ,V
In the lightl'o.;i"the arguments advanced, the points that arise for

-. :consideration’ are :: C;/i,,..-~-

Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the offences u11dert~Sl-/%’3′,~».vv

144, 148, 506 B, 307 IPC;

Whether the material evidence on record is stifficient to hold” accused

guilty of the offences with which they were charged;. 2

Whether the order of the trial court suffers–~from any error’i.or:«perversslty

in convicting and sentencing the accused. i

What order, if any.

At the outset, it would berelc»vant te_br_ieil’y_ the evidence of

each of these

PW l prime witness and he is none
other than the soh=.i_n–lvawi’ PW 2 who claims to be the
oc’c~u_pa11t uS’y.vNo..7’7 which is an inam land of Anajaneya

Dev–aru:of He has spoken about the complaint written by

‘ ” i…y_.Jo11e l\/Iunirajlu. I?ie'”hj_21s.5’21Eso stated that there is a land dispute between his

_fa’tl;f:r in law the Muzrai Department in respect of Sy.No.77. He has

‘f_”‘«alsoii_deposed to the effect that when the “Deputy Commissioner visited

in Sy.l\io.77 on 23.8.1997, his father in law has given a


statement before the Deputy Commissioner and he has stated that he

came to know ahout this fact. He also claims to he an eye witnesste._the

incident that has taken place in the evening and he is from _

neighboring Village. According to him, while 2 Krislinappaféwgii it


Vishwanath and PW 4 Nanjappa came near theyhotiseygofliratishnappaiin :’_– at

Maruthi car, accused l to 10 came vl’l()l.t_iing cluhs and.’ic’l1opper

assaulted Krishnappa, Nanjappa and fell down
on sustaining head injury on Krishnappa also
sustained head injury and Vishwanath on his right
forearm. Later, loiie: Anand shifted the
injured Nanjavppal_’tt)l lie also states, at the time
of the incident; one Rajappa and another police
constable y-{ere iipreslenttpg spoken about the mahazar/panchanama
tie;E§~fi;:’At]1:’€i3..,g’¢enevoiloffence by the investigating officer of

Vidya:anyapt1’ra:’Police;. .

Inhis crogssaexainination, he has deposed that he came to know

.. iri’_j’:a«ho’u.t. the incident that took place in the morning only at 4.00 pm.

1~-.:lAccordVi.nglto him, he has admitted that there is a telephone in the house



of Krishnappa and that he did not receive any phone call. Rather, he

ascertained the incident through his brother–in–1aw Venkatesh.

detail cross–examjnation, several contradictions were elicitedgf”Severai ;.

suggestions were also got denied, also to the effect that alt V’ ”

witnessed the incident on that day in the evening. ;é;uggestion :. .i

put to him. that he went to the police station oni”24li.i8.l997.fiiro1tnd

am. and gave complaint as per Ex.P1 ar:di’th_at he”di_dnot file the
complaint on 23.8.1997 aroundié-s,i_f’i:(‘ p.i_r1., denied. This
witness has also spoken about the of someiiarticiles ‘by the Police.

PW 2 is one .i to whom, the Land Tribunal
by its order, granted rights in Sy.No.77. According to
this witness. _ on itihexii date: of ithie incident, the Special Deputy
Colnrnissioinier Eliadvisiteidt .sy…No.77 and had made inquiry and he
ih:for_med’that iniipossession of Sy.No.77 since fifty years and when

the Die’puty_Cio1nifrxi,s_si.oi1e;’ asked him to submit the order passed by the

Tfli)t?_§’tai, he has handed over the order to the Village

.4i_if_Ap_cco:1Vntant the Revenue inspector and that the Deputy

{ ‘Coinimisisioher went back. Further, according to PW 2, when the Deputy



Commissioner visited the land, about six accused were there and also

one Eayaramegowda was present. His son Vishwanath asked the accused,

.i.e., accused l,2,5,7,8 and .12 regarding speaking falsehood.7:biei”or§ev:-r,he _

Eeputy Commissioner that Sy.No.77 is not bein,gMcu1tiva_teti’b:}i{ ii

that time, the accused picked up a quarrel. He ha-sstated, at that”tim_e;reA;;Ve Al

accused 2,3,7,8 and 6 picked up choppers and spadeiiand 3 i

W» Vishwanath and so also, accused i, 5 strife and
son ran away from the spot. about filing a
complaint before the Vidyaranyapara._Efolice,piat it:i:né,e,’iiionce again the
accused attacked p A,/ihandra and Raj Gopal
went to the Heiihias stated that later, he and
Vishwanath wen.t_pi’to Police Station and lodged a
cornplaint.p:’,o,_];to, they have shifted the injured
{to He has also spoken in detail about

the oVe.rt*a_ct,1o’fv the accused. He states, the 2*” accused Szinivas

“go; down ‘frorn..__th’eTFata Sumo, took out a iron rod and smashed the front

the Marathi car. The 3″ accused Chandra also smashed the rear

ofiti1ce’l\/Earuthi car and the 1″‘ accused, held the hairs of Nanjappa

it and” dragged him out, Nanjappa felldown near the car and accused


l,2,3,6 and 8 assaulted Nanjappa with chopper on his head, Ieft hand,

and back and caused injuries. The 2″‘; accused Srinivas was said to ‘be.

holding a chopper and rest of the accused assauited Nanjappa…w4ith:V”‘

rod. When this witness intervened, at that time, accused-C5, 8» it

assaulted him ie, the 6″‘ accused assaulted__hinfr__withlichopper ‘Genghis

head and other two accused assaulted him with an..iro?1 rod oinahis. back, f

Atso, he has given details as to the other accused assaulting-.iV’is.hwanath

and Nanjappa. According to him, tnevlilpoliceCconstables …were
present near the incident ran away from spot and ‘accused thinking

that Nanjappa is dead, also ran away frofrn thevi’sp_ot.._i”*..

In the cross~exVa.r’ii;itnaptii’on,”seye–r_al~ contradictions were eiicited and

also suggestions Wtzre made to theeffect that one Jayararne Gowda who

was preserjt atnthe spot.__toId the Deputy Commissioner that the High

Court has passed order against the order of the Land Tribunal and

local iiinspectioniiiirieedpnot be made, which he has admitted. He also

admitted. that Hiiigh Court has set aside the order of the Tribunal and

._:directe’d+ti)e Deputy Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. Also,

sttggestpioins were made that he quarreled with Iayarame Gowda,



Rajagopal and Devaraj and his son and himself assaulted them, which he

has denied. However, he admitted that Jayarame Gowda had

complaint against him and his son Vishwanath. He also admitted _

nearby the scene of incident, there is a hotel, residential. and it

shops and there are 500 residential houses at Ti-ndlu at

persons are residing at Tindlu. He also admitted that hee.’c’ontested for

Society elections and also won and, _i:ncidtint there
is a BTS bus depot. He has telephone in his
house in the year 1997. __A suggesfion ppgiopt the Special
Deputy Commissioner, give way to the
devotees to offering poojas. He has
admitted that acicasedl and public interest litigation before
the Court give oi’erTSy.No.77 to reach Anjaneya Swamy
pending. Also, a suggestion was got

denied toitheii thiatijecause of the misunderstanding between them

VSlI”lQC accused .l”am.l’ .10 had filed a public interest litigation before the

falsely implicated the accused. A suggestion was

l”«_'”al.s'(,-. m*a_de~ to him that when the accused smashed the car, he screamed

ithshelpibut, he has stated that none of the residents of the nearby locality



or the people in the Hotel came near the spot. A suggestion was also got
denied that no such incident took place either in the morning or in the

evening and that the accused had not come to the spot armed with deadly

weapons and that they were not watching the moverrtents of this. ” V
and others. He has stated that he was treated at RMV Hos_pi’t’ai fofrfthiree”
days. Several omissions were also got marked. ;su.g’gestion_.VVtrgisvvalgolta

denied to the effect that in order to knock off the’ landin o.77′.’vt l

he had prevented the devotees of Anjaneva’ Swarny. _T’er:tplellr.passing
through the iand to reach the Al alsovrrtade that a
false complaint is filed against theflaccused demanding right

of way over deified.

PW 3 ~«7\/ishwanath A:_jis_i”th_e”‘s.or: of PW 2. He has also spoken

similar to that of father..PW’v_2lr’egarding witnessing the incident and

s:lustai–ning~—-injuries.”– xlele has”a'{so narrated the incident and the injuries

sustlainetlahlys ‘and_o_’ther injured persons. According to him, one

Devaraj Aasasaultetl hiniilwith a chopper on his left hand and Muniraju and

* «i..fjVChaml.ru assatI.i_t’ed with an iron rod on his back and legs. He has also



deposed that other accused have assautted Nanjappa with chopper on his

head and atso on the chest.

In the cross–examination, he has admitted that accused pet;s0–ns

did not prevent him and his father from going to the police st~ati.o_n., .

has also stated that when he got down from the i\/iaruthiHca_f’~aion.ig’~wiLhi

his father Krishnappa and Nanjappa, they didginotiscreairn foif .ftél13.s

the accused armed with deadly weapons surroundtid their he aiso*

has not requested the neighbors to rescuVe’hin1 and his father fsjona the
hands of the accused. A suggestiiéon is also got–. to the effect that

he sustained ‘injury. .n_io«torhi,i{e-,,accident and he has filed a faise

complaint in connivanee w.ith~hi;;,_fa’ther, to implicate the accused.
PW 4 _– Na4i’ijappaVV_i’v:s anottier injured witness who has spoken

sitniilat to’-t__hiat I”J\/A s 2 ‘According to him, after the assault in the

incident’, he fed_down_unconscious. He has stated, it is one Devaraj,

‘~….Chandra’a_nd some~5ai’e; accused who have smashed the front glass of

~ .i’_jt,he ‘Marathi Carfwith an iron rod. He regained conscious after fifteen

1fidays’–oi’a.the””incident at Maiiya Hospitai. According to him, the accused


also tried to stop the car on the way and later, he drove the car near the

house of PW 2 Krishnappa and stopped the car and there the aeettsed

came in a Tata Sumo vehicle and, the accused 1 to 9 arrnetlw’ith’~-é.rQ’n:_.__’= _

rods and shoppers came near him and some aceused ha.’se”a–ss§t:il_te»d him l

with chopper on his head and left hand and also assaullteld.wi.th”-ironirodsg if

on the hand and on his back. .._V _ V V pp _
He has been cross–examined in deltaigl and seVerall”o:nissions were

also got marked. He has giVlen..,_a dleseription asllitoil who all

assaulted. A suggestion was also got rl_ei:iied tha_t«.thel.’aeeused 1 to 8 & I3

did not assault with e’hoppei’.,on«hi’s._head_’ and also on his left hand. He
has admitted several suggestions”regarding presence of several shops and

hotels nearthe se”ene”of’i’;1cid,en_t~.–‘and also a bus stop. It is also the

vsuggesticgiiti/fiihe defense,V___t_he. people of Tindlu Village had given a

{l)lG{‘Ilpl2:lii’1.E’Vt0_lli6i~l§t”~a{?CUSCd alleging that PW 2 Krishnappa was not

pass through the land in Sy.No.77 and

V ae_eording*–.to theldefense, PW 2 and himself being friends, have sustained

ll :v’.,l’lht3_L§Vfif;S in a road accident, which is denied. Also, a suggestion was got

(i–et1iead*to the effect that when an inquiry was made, at that time, he told



the Doctor at Mallya Hospital that he had sustained injuries in the road

traffic accident.

One of the witness for seizure panchanatna has not ‘supj3e1’ted the

version of the prosecution and another charge :shc.e’t witness for:”et.he*<:;_r

seizure has not been examined by the prosecntionli'-V. 2 V _
PW 5 « K Ajjanna is the Police inspect'or who .fi1ed.charge sheet

after taking over charge of the front 'l'6~,..«the Inspecvtor who
conducted the investigation of the case._ i

PW 6 K__ soniof PW 2 and he has also
spoken about the tncidentinl and evening. He has stated that
when the incident atvthat time, people had assembled and
also place on seeing the people. Several

sugge'st.ion.s .w"e~re~~.got».i"de'nied and suggestions regarding the omissions

were made-. to this-.w'itness. A suggestion was also made to the effect

that _there_is enn:1ity between his father and the accused persons even

t'oVt'iie'al1ege.d incident in respect of Sy.No.77 which belongs to



Anjaneya Swamy Temple and in that connection, a false case was

against the accused persons.

PW 7 one Srinivas, according to the prosecution, is .Witf1eSE}.iuf(} ”

the incident but, he has not given any details as”to-the o–ccurrence of

incident. He was cross–examined by the puE1ic::.prosecu’tor. .. _”1″hoai:gh_.

some of the suggestions were admitted but he has is’tate~d”t’hat”he

has not given such statement before the p,o}’ice§’g_’–. A. ..
PW 8 one Gangappa, ‘~«.{{eadCQi1sta*Ebe., ‘”ac_cording to the

prosecution, was ptesen.t,a.t_the t«i._rtit:.,_of.inc’ident and has witnessed the
incident. In hiseyi4dencie;».he~h’as istiatedi that on the day of the incident,

while he was on,,.patro1’-dtttygihe learnt through some peopie that a gaiata
goingduon ?i’ron’t._of the house of Krishnappa and as such, he went

there “aiong ,lwith’~«.,Yen’l§aitachaiaiah, Police Constable. When he was

iiiiapproachintg the of office, the public cried as ‘police’ and about

ii_”i’;}_ir’rdred persons “had gathered at the spot. By the time he went there,

not there and he noticed that Nanjappa had sustained

linj’u’1ci_e–s’lon his head but, he did not see Krishnappa and Vishwanath at



has stated, he has not seen the presence of people of nearby locality

assembled near the spot and that Nanjappa driving the Maruthi

near the spot and none else were there. He also admitted thatiiheididfiiolt _

ascertain the details as to the incident.

PW 10 ~ Muniraju is the scribe of the c’omplai:1vt.7._He’

about the smashing of the front glass of the Marut.hi”c.ar I’1€31%.t.1’E”.fif10l1SC:”(5fVi V


PW il Gangadhar is a..pancha«~~~for–.the_ seizluire-..0f–flseveral

incriminatinglgartieies”at .r__he.pinstaiice of the accused. He has not
supported the version oi”-se’izure”ot'”the articles by the police at the
instance of}.;hi”s accused. ., _ it V

PW___ VAVCYjh’andrashekar who treated Krishnappa at RMV

iiospitai and f:5und”‘that there is a lacerated wound over the scalp and

ewithe head with bleeding from the left ear. He has opined that

“V ther~inj’uri’es”are grievous in nature. Krishnappa is said to have told him

Vi V T thathe”was assaulted by the assailants on 23.8.1997. He has noted in the



Wound Certificate that Krishnappa was assauited by strangers in the

viiiage at Tindiu and issued a certificate aceordingiy as at Ex.P8.

However, in the c:ros$–examination, he has opined that he cannot

say whether the margins of the wound at Si.No..E was a clean cut iiiijinry

or not. He has also stated that if a person is assaulted by a bh.:~nt4’ohj_e’e’t,.Vi” .

he may sustain a ciean cut injury or may not sustain a c1ean~–eutfiinjury.ii

He has stated that if a person is assauited by cluhi or ironi ‘rod, he _

suffer contusions on his person and maypaiso suffer fractu,re9.. HoWe\5’er’,V

he has opined that he has not found any con_tusi.ons o’r~.in.é’is~e:d wound on

PW 2 Krishnappa and”it.ha.t,_Vi£a’pei’son .fa’1is on a hard surface, injury E
and 2 can be eausedii Hie=hasr.Aad1ni’tt_edthat Krishnappa toid him that he

was assaulted’ by strarigersv at ‘§”indiu, based on the case records and

d’ischarge_psumrnaryZrizaintained in the hospital.
PW ‘V333 the Head Constable who has reg.ist’ered the

i “*~~–i_?.rR aroui1di2.3Gpi1n, an 23.8. :99? on the compiaint fiied by PW 2.


PW 14 is Dr Mali Manjunath who has treated Vishwanath S/o PW

2 Krishnappa and found laeerated injury over the left upper arm of

” skin deep and also opined that it is simple in nature and V,~;.«f§1′]T’\2fs2’8,I._’1″ci{.if’lr’.

was treated as an out patient and that the injuries could.ybe_'”eau;sed one

hour earlier to the treatment. According to this D_oct;or;_pheAl1a.s’*tre.at’edV_

Vishwanath around 7.30 p.m. and issued sic WoundCertifipcaieipiat I3x.}é9′;’vv ‘

PW 15 is or Raj Gopal who has a§a~:_¢d the injured”vl\la£oj’a”ppai at
Mallya Hospital on the intervening night”of..23f24tS.l99i7’and..found as

many as seven injuries -w on the parie’ta1’i’egi(Jn, _leftv”t1aitd, left wrist and

fracture of the 1’ighAtx’paVrieta«].p bot1e.___ He has opined that injury 8 —
tenderness on the left vvrist ‘aoar_t”froirifiinjuries 6 and 7, is grievous in

nature andhas issued a-»Wo’und Certificate at Ex.P10.
In crossexaniination; he has stated that he cannot give the

exaetflength the injuries and also could not say whether the

‘ injuries a.re’f.incisedfv;ound or lacerated wound and that he did not notice

contusion on the body of Nanjappa. He has admitted at E1-LP10 ~«

4’.._:”wou:id.certificate that there. is a struck off portion mentioning as ‘road



traffic accident’ and also admitted the words ‘road traffic accident’ was

in his hand writing which was struck of and later written as ‘assaul.t.’i~-

also admitted that E.x.Pl0 was issued based on the

maintained in the hospital i.e., MLC Register.

PW 16 ~ Ramaiah is the investigating”officer. who-i’ha.s.i ‘spoken

about the investigation conducted, recoveries naadeland theg.fi1siln’g of the”; ‘

Charge sheet.

In the cross-examination, he hasp_.,ad’mi_tted that”‘S-1_07H,iCr.PC

proceedings was the accused persons as well as
against PW 2 that there was also instruction
git/gen for patrolling of the incident. Also, a suggestion
to know after the investigation that MOs

at l2–i:<§, novt"connected to this case. Also according to him,

iatthe timepf coi1tiue'ting search in the house of the accused, he secured

l.llt\tlie"h,'ii'«\i';£' .01' aiwioman constable and also he knew that when male

flliiielrnhersl"were not present in the house, he had to secure a woman

V for help and for searching. But, he has admitted that he has


not mentioned the name of the woman constable who has assisted. A

suggestion has been got denied to the effect that he has s_se~i_jz,ecl__

agricultural implements and kitchen items.

DW 1 was also examined on behalf of the

Nanjappa, aged about 80 years and he is arfiayedgglasivthe

According to him, accused l to 10 are ph’is_relative_sl’and the} ‘hp

is his brother in law and the 13″‘ accusediliislhis friend. «lie stated,

Anjaneya Swainy Temple was cons«truc–ted§.about2U0_to 300″ years back

and that he is born and brought \;=”;1.1agé’ ;_ar;*d that he is an

agriculturist. He has’j’s*tatedl.lonepipl’-lnarayaaiiaswamy Gowda was looking
after the management Narayanappa was the Archak
about thirty; years sonliérinivas Murthy was looking after the
‘to_vhim,vvélg.lNo.77 measuring L22 acres is a temple

inami”l.a_nd’__adjoini~n3g thel\n_janeya Swamy Temple and people used to go

to the Tef’nple.–__io’ (2f’l’er pooja, through the land in Sy.No.77 and the land

“ivs’i3eing c_ultiV’ated and, Ragi and other crops were grown. Except the

yield “f_ro’r’rr:1he land, there was no other income to the Temple and the

T la_4n”d”iniSy.No.77 stood in the name of Srinivasa lvlurthy, Archak. But,




later in the year 197435, RTC was changed in the name of ?W 2

Krishnappa. However, the Tahsildar appointed thirteen person5;._llas.

Trustees to the temple in the year 1980 including DW 1.

him, Sy.No.77 was a valuable land and ?W 2 was iti ‘

declared as a grant, as an occupant. Against the order of the “I’ribun’al,..,,p_, f

writ petition was filed by Srinivasa Mmrthy ancllthe’ order»’tv3fAthe.Lahduil

Tribunal was set aside and matter ‘t5hel:i}I)eputy
Commissioner, Bangalore. to getthe entries
in the RTC in respect of He has stated,
the villagers of to reach the
Temple as PW 2 Krishnappa was
obstructing. The people and other devotees complained
ofxthe obstrpction this regard, a public interest litigation
the accused persons have been falsely

irnplic}:tc’d’__on complaint by PW 2 through his son in law.

has a.1.«;'<;—. stated,-oh 23.8.1997, himself and accused 10,12 and 13 had

Crhannakseshavaswainy Temple at Siddlaghatta in the morning

"i landeeaineback around £0.30 pm. This witness was also cross–exa1nined

iat–.le'n'gt'n to deny various statements.



As per the medical evidence, PW 2 has sustained two injuries and

as per the evidence of Dr Chandrashekar, there is one lacerated_’wo-und._

over the scalp and another injury over the left ear and the.-doc’tor;’has _

opined that they are grievous in nature. It is alsojpertiuezaf to note ithatas

per the MLC Register maintained, per the staterr1en::iofirP._W ij_’

he was assaulted by strangers in the village,” Thedoctor alsioificould not

give opinion whether the injuries mention_e._d”aVre=clean cut injury? or not.
He has also stated, he did not findijanyiior-_ wound over the

person of Krishnappa.

As to the i_njurieE’-;rs.u_stainedby PW 3 — son of PW 2, it is stated
there is one lacerapted wo:.1nd’ Aov,er=theV’1eft upper arm and the injury is
simple in nature and” would have been caused one hour prior to

exanainmgiirl :the”doctor. The doctor has examined the injured on

23.8. per the evidence of PW IS — Dr Rajagopai, he

has seen as rnany eight injuries and injury 2 and 3 were grievous in

etuheyviwere fracture to the parietai bone. The evidence of the

inj_ured._vvitness speak to the effect that all the accused have assaulted

T thern’;*



So far as seizure of weapons are concerned, except the evidence

of the investigating officer, independent witnesses have not supporhteda

the seizure of weapons from the house of the accused. Apart ;”f’ror:fi..’_tE1.nti., ;.

one more independent witness has not been examined regardi_n’g seiaure.

it is also admitted that the accused personsaare frorn Tind.llu’=Viilalgesa;i Al

Even PW 2 and 3 are the residents of Tindlu Villagei’w.vher.~.5as

resident of Kodigehalli, an adjoining villagei.*._i V ;
As could be seen, PW 2 has…sustaiAried’ttwo irguries but; the doctor

could not narrate as to the nature’ ofthe-injtiry__la’nCi’uthedescription to

arrive at a conclus_i-an lwhethei’. they are grievous in nature except stating
that they are grievous in nature. , PW 3 is shown to have sustained
only simple injuries. According to his version and also according to the

prosecputionl versi.on,”l<1e sustained injuries in the morning. However,

there is .also__ a iiricidventntalien place in the evening. So far as the morning

incident isl'eono.ernen"; complaint is said to have been filed. According

3, he hassustained injury in the morning but, evidencing the same

i there is2_no' inedicai evidence. However, the doctor who examined PW 3

' , _ ilf'olund"only simple injury on the left upper arm.



So far as injuries sustained by PW 4 Nanjappa is cor1cernedl”l;1e

has sustained many as eight injuries. As per the ad1nission..1n.ade

the cross–examination of Dr Rajagopal, first it is Wfi[[¢fl”l’fI’.VE)4i’P’3O -9

Wound Certificate that it was due to road traffic aecAide;nt«_an1d _

struck off and written as ‘by assault’. _rH_oweve*r. such entry. said’.to<

have been made based on the MLC maintaiinted at;:Maiiya

It is also pertinent to note thatiaccusied l___an’d_’ are said to have

filed a public interest”‘liti’gatic=n who was claiming

occupancy of Tindlu Village and
was obstmctingijpeyople ‘/iiiiyijaneya Swamy Temple through the
said Eand._;l’het..land inarnvland. It appears, the Archak of the
was there also filed a writ petition

wherein “the. o’rder,_of.:’tlie Tribunal was set aside and the matter was

remitted to th_e’De”puty Commissioner. In this connection, several

aresaid to have been given by PW 2 before the Deputy

Clomrnissioner and in this background, some scuffle is said to have

T tal{eri*place between the accused and PWs 2 and 3. As narrated by PWs



2 and 3 as regards the morning incident, they filed a cornpiaint and

according to them, PW 3 sustained injury. I.t is also their case thapéthey

accused assaulted them with clubs, chopper and stones._.§i_’iH’oxiJ_e-ver,r.-___

evidencing the morning incident and sustaining injuries;v~–there”*»is’no

medicai evidence much iess other evidence eorrobo.rating tAhe”sain:ei.___to~::Vei

believe the version of the injured witnesses««_.._V V V _.
So far as the evening incident eoncerned_,_ ‘allf.=thé.: injured

witnesses have spoken in unequivocal terms ‘regarding sustaining injuries
and the overt act of the accused statingtiiatdthey”ha”ve.:as_s_au1ted with iron

rod, chopperflandfl liif at..:ValiiV__as. narrated by these witnesses, if
thirteen accused “have mdiscriminately by weapons as
mentioned by then1;.inevcessa1’ilythere should have been several injuries
found onvfiie body: }iowev_er_,Nanjappa/PW 4 has sustained a fracture,
“agvper thyedii’i”ned’iie«al_e’videnoe, that may be due to assault or due to fall or

dueV’it.oVVa~ 1ri.ot’o*r._vehicl_e accident and it is not made clear by the

prosecution either fsby re–examining the witness to under what

~ «i..j’jve’i«rcu»mstance the Wound Certificate of PW 4 Nanjappa, the history

‘1.”‘«wa:~f_’writtenyas ‘road traffic accident’ and later struck of and written as


‘by assault’. The vivid description of the injuries sustained by PW 4 has

also not been properly explained.

It is also pertinent to note, the prosecution failed to “prove—t;i’te7..

recovery at the instance of these accused as the independent “w__itn.ess.vvhoe»

was examined has not supported the versio’n”oi”the ‘.pro.s«ecuti_enV. “Tlt

appears, as many as nearly 15 to 20 rnaterial”obl3’ects were recoveiiedf”

According to the prosecution, all these accused were ;§rine_d_: wigthlleither
chopper or pickaxe or clubs and”spade,»l’BurL:thereis no corresponding

injury found on the person to prove using’ ofilitiiesepvvveapoiis at the time of

commission of the ofifenee_.l_3yt«the.aceuse_d._’
It is also-the jcv’idence'”of thelponlice witness who was present at the

spot that more than htvindredlpersons had gathered near the scene of
cjifenvce 3£l_l[liQ_LIgh lil”e’l~..g=.–;«;..turned partially hostile to the version of

thel’prosecutio’n, laceolrding to him, the accused were not present. It is

to ‘be”noted,”éli_ere was previous enmity between the is’ and 10″‘

_li’e~..gccus_ed and The possibility of implicating these accused for the

‘heirro_lusyVof’i’ence cannot be ruled out. Even according to the description


given by PW 2 before the doctor, he is a resident of Ti.ndlu Viliage and

accused also are from Tindlu Village.

If really such an incident has taken place as is explained’

witnesses, there was no impediment for them to makeha ‘1’aen’tion ‘the?’

names of the assailants at the time of Iiarrating’t–he«_histor.y’–.of: the

incident. Of course, PW 1 — compla.ina11t wouldvhave :nemfioned’=thea. V

names of some of the accused- But, PW stated”th_at’the assault was

by strangers.

Further, according .to”the’de’fe1_1se version, the day of the incident
was a Saturday in the n:ointVh’vofi’~~Shp:avan and several devotees had

gathered and in the ..sct1ffle-.betwee.rr PW 2 and his men on the one side

Vartd._the d.¢siar¢§’s on the uo’th¢:.Ii._Sitie ~ might be some villagers, the injured

wouldih-ave _sAurstained injuries. Although they have given a vivid

descriptio1_1 ofkhe accused holding some weapon and assault, it is

n”‘”noticed, there .are_ corresponding injuries on the body. There are

» f’_j~emhellishment;s”:a11d exaggerations made by these witnesses to implicate

‘ the accused;



others, the evidence of these witnesses are shown to be little clumsytand

more contradictions are there which are not in the nature ;of-.imin_orf’

contradictions to over look to hold all the accused guilty

So far as the version of the cornp_l_ainant._PW l its”iconcerne:d,i.l

according to him, he is a witness to the and filed cornplaint.
But, it is also evident from his not explain the
individual overt act. Apart frorn– PW 8 Head
Constable is that, w.h.€l1:V ‘ofi’ence , none of the
accused were there; Might be that PW 8
turned liostile.:’:__Even i [has witnessed the incident as
stated by him, was no for him to give the minimum
details as tciithei.overt the accused and that itself shows that he

would,An’ot._,be an A’w.itness to the incident. The ‘$1-{I16I’l{i0I1il1g of the

names’ 0f”th_e« assa’i_l:1i1ts:;’iii” the t that too filed after 2. % hours of

the inciderit” by =§,_::oing”ito the police station, without filing the complaint at

dtlieiispot thouglithe police had arrived at the spot on such information by

4*._vPWf_.8;’-throws suspicion on the version of the complainant as to the

H ‘ involvemeiit of these accused.



Further, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is contradictory to the

evidence of PW 4. According to PW 3, the accused came in

Sumo Vehicle and dragged out PW 4 from the Maruthi _

version of PW 4 is, he got down from the car along w_i–t’i1’PW*s p2’=andA 3.__ it

The version of PWs 2 and 3 is as if the accused have ?.relngei*ulIy di’ag,_gec!:;Vs it

out PW 4 from the car. This verszionahas been’contradi’c.t§3d_bygthel

version of PW 4 himself. Further, to PW.’3i.:t_he Isiiacciised
instigated others to finish of PW»?l:7but,’i«_ac:i;(3rdi’ng»to”PW 4, the 10″‘ and
11″‘ accused instigated others ffilere also there is
contradictory versionl–..,Vby:P’\7_f{‘s.3’«andjéi. to PW 2, the 1″
accused heldighe tI1_Aftof’vPW:’4palidiildragged him out of the car and PW 4

fell down is notisinalported.hy~the_ of PW 4 injured himseif.
As noted earlier; I.hpe’V-.vei*.sior{ of PW3 injured .is that he sustained

,injuri_es £ll€;_Ai.f:1Ci€l§3nt thlat”u*c*c’ur1’ed at 10.30 am. on 23.8.1997 but, no

medical je”vi.dence..’i’:;.j_Vproduced supporting the same. The wound

Vi”n….certificate_ llissuedllivttlnthe doctor who examined him in the evening

..liji’_j.:egarding the incident that took place in the evening shows that PW 3

“.._:l’h.ad”‘o_iiiy one simple injury on the left forearm. This shows there is


exaggeration. A suggestion is also got denied to the effect that he___is a

motor cycle racer and he would have met with an accident and s.i_ista:i_ned–_

injuries. But, the manner in which PW 3 has narrated the..Airicideii’t-iihati'”: ‘

is, if really all the accused have assaulted the_.in§u.red, there “\’a’v’il:)t.?.ll..’.ll.V’l’1’_f’;1″m(C

been several injuries much less fatal injuries. ‘”‘vEx(:’eptionesiriiple ji11jur.v;7T.A


there are no other injuries and that showsfthe accused have been falriely

implicated in this case. The version that_Athej§accused
have attacked the injured and choppers. If
an attack as stated by 2 more fatal
injuries would begthereg. weapons by the

investigating _th-emziccused have also not been.
proved much is iiot as to the fact that there were
blood stainsongggthel .welei;xjo’1iS prodiiiced. The 1″ accused is said to have
theE”‘ifolti:1itary given by him and as per S.27 of the

Evide’nceI’_Act,”-;it’*has no.-vevident.iary value and, if at all several material

lilobjects like choppers and iron rods were there at the scene of offence as

by onewof the witnesses, seizing of all the weapons by {he

investigating officer which are, in all 34 in number, would improbablise



the case of the prosecution. Was it practically possible for these l.3__–l4

accused to bring about 34 material objections to commit the of’fe;1ce–?1?.j”~«.V””

PW 6 who is the brother of PW 3 and son of PW 2 has _

the effect that the 14″‘ accused assaulted the injured, paiso 4-his it

evidence that the 1″ accused pulled down 4;_fr.orii ‘the: Martitliiii’-CaiI;;Va_ei

but, nothing has been whispered by PW -4__ in this regard.c.’vAiccordi11gi§ told

this PW 6, accused 10 to 13 were standi1ig.at any distance ifrnornvfthe spot
and that the 14″‘ accused assaultcdii’ Adilinziét.ithe_’lvv4*’i?1Ccused a split UP

chare sheet is filed and heis absconding. VAccior§:Ii’ng:t’o, 6, accused 7

and 8 assaulted PW 3″ivit.hvchoppei;.,.__If both of them have assaulted as
explained by ii.i1n,’– then, there should have been severai
injuries. His evidence”aIso’.caiu_1ot~~–be believed. It is even his evidence
that the l-413;: accused has assaulted on the head of his father. As regards

shifting.ot’P”the ;’ii.njtIre’dy_.is concerned, he has stated, his father and brother

V’ishxvjaiiath’xvereytalcenviiin a Tata Sumo to the hospital and that PW l

ih*–..___Kvariapna in the Tata Sumo of one Anand. But, the

7_version of ifirtanyd aitogether different regarding the shifting of the

LiVrij1it1’f;d.’r Further, according to the injured witness, the Maruthi Car was



damaged but, that has not been seized under rhahzar nor it has been

produced so as to identify having regard to the evidence ice: in.

prosecution witness. Even the version of PW 9 is that, he didfitot seevihthe b *

accused persons in the Tata Sumo but, he has _onEy__seen'soihete.chojjper.$

in the hands of some persons who came to ih the. Tata

Krishnappa and Vishwanath, PWs 2 were ~iVi "QS
Ramaiah Hospital and so also PWJ4 Nanjapgaa}"gv.PVJ_.4 'adimitted in his
crossexarnination that he and .and– Such being the
case, had the incident reaiiy occurred have turned
hostile to the version as and the overt act of

the accused.

Accoi:di’ng. to .Vthe.__e’videnV’ce of Dr. Raj Gopal – PW 15, the
pos.sibiii.ty Pwbgnljisusgtaining injury due to a road traffic accident aiso

is not “1’u_ie-id out; :°*Apartv»’i’rom that, as noticed in the wound certificate

issued as we-ii as.”the»e;ntry in the MLC Register, the history was recorded

traffic accident and this had been struck of and written as ‘by

“‘£’h’at also throws doubt on the Version of the prosecution. One

V’ V of–«the”panch witness for the seizure of as many as forty four articles has



turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. The recording of

statement of PW 4 by the police is shown to be after thirty five.._ol7_

the alleged incident although he regained consciousness __i'{nrne:dia:telyi'”t——1lor

after one or two weeks of the incident. Even .t.he_FSL;lreploitjaslitoythe

presence of blood stains identifying the persons’ blo_’od’Vor is

the blood stains on material objects’ia_re*~..not made ayaivlable””‘oy. the


Might be some semblance of_* evidence is there on record

regarding the accused assaulting the But, the version

of the injured juot above doubt and several
embellishmentsarethere. The background on which
the incidentiharzrytakeln place the morning of 23.8.1997 is, there was a
Commissioner in respect of Sy._No.77

whiclh”-is property of Anjaneya Swamy Temple given

the farnily t:_:l”a:-otiuised l to 1] during the time of their forefathers,

.4 ginjured PW 2 is said to have got entered i.n his name and the

t’he*Land Tribunal has been set aside subsequently in the writ

llpetui’tion’*l’iled by the Archak of the Temple and in that connection, the


Deputy Commissioner had visited the land .in Sy.No.’/7. Might be, some

incident has taken place but that is not enough to connect the accusied_’t~o_

hold guilty of the accused. The connecting iinks/evidenceairei’rtti.’s’si:ig-‘1′ _

and there are doubtful circumstances made “out by.”the’~d_efeii1wse*_to

disbelieve the version of the prosecution. The prclihciipleiicis,”prosecu’ti.onij_’

must be abie to prove beyond reasonable-._doubti’thal thei’iaccu’se.dyyyhave

committed the offence with which they arecliarged. T’here_ is scope for
entertaining a doubt as to the veracity of iin”Je’:+tigation and also the
seizure of the weapons match less”th’e– the sustained by

the injured and also of-syustainin.gi theiinjuries due to a road

traffic accident .th’eHentry in the MLC Register
which was as ‘by assauit’. As per
the ratio laid down decisihcnitelied upon by the appellant’s counsel.
cited the complainant has faiied to mention

the narneis oft on-e..–v’accused while lodging the complaint and this

avspect does not’i’ri:~i_o’it’e the confidence of the court to hold that these are

if H ” ”the—- persons involved in the commission of the offence in the background

there’ was also a iand dispute between the accused on the one side

if thevinjured on the other side. Might be the injured have sustained


injuries but, to connect the accused and to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt, there is short of evidence. The nommentioning.oi’~.the_

names of the accused as the assailants in the complaint filedfl-aiill ~

to the case. –

The trial court has noted that PW 1 coh1p]a.inatit isthe sori4’§n’-.l_aw;c .l

of PW 2 and an eye witness to the incident and it has nc.ted,f_as_V_per_i§theh

evidence of PW 1., accused ] to 9 came to spot armed \’2vithV}Machhu
and sticks and that he, along vVvit_hiFone’l._An_and’,*–..w-as”standing inside the

compound of the houseaof KrishnvapipaVand__at’t~hat”tithe, Krishnappa,

Vishwanath and Nanjappastiere’ getting down from the car and accused 1
to 9 came in ad Talta, Sumo uac.c”o’rding to him, the 1*” accused told

other persons to assau.ltlKrish’nappa, Vishwanath and Nanjappa with

v’w.eaVp:on.s,’Vlx”court has noted that PW 1 did not state that accused

10 to ._li5__were:”prese’nvt””at the place of the occurrence and instigated

ac-fcused ll”-to toassault Krishhappa, Vishwanath and Nanjappa. The

“tria1,’court, noting PW 3 Vishwanath in his evidence has no where

I’ :;t_ated’.that”accused l0–l3 were present at the spot and instigated accused



l to 9 to assault PW 2 Krishnappa and PW 4 Nanjappa, acquitted

accused 10» 1 3.

lt is pertinent to note that in the cross–examination of PW * V

specifically stated that he could not say what is the overt__act_oi each of

the accused i.e., accused 1. to 9. Apart from that,»thc.elvidence_.’c-.fVPWl”8

also speaks to the fact that PW 1 came to the soon :a::tfiei”‘he w,en’t. ll

there. By that time, the accused were notpelpltiiere. PW has
turned hostile but, the very fact.th’atp_PW’ eitarninationiitsell’ could

not say the individual overt act of ‘l~accufseid’ l_–~to”‘§jat’_’the time of the

incident. If he had really…witneé:.sed__the incident, he could have at least
mentioned about, the overt “act _oi”«,sorne of the accused regarding the

blows on the i.njured,”»w_lithl what weapon and on which portion of the

“body; liairssifies that he could not have witnessed the incident.

Aisoil’the’~lv_ery”fact.,tha.t’at the time of the incident, police constables were

also present and immediately the Circle inspector of Vidyaranayapura

V’?oiicleAS.tation’also came to the scene of offence and, nothing prevented

ll tc. a complaint with the inspector then and there, shows there

i was”scope for PW” l to implicate the accused. as an after thought. The



trial court has simply believed the version of PW 1 to treat him as an

eye witness to the incident

Even the version of PW 9 M Anand said.to__be anieye–:’witiriess.st0

the incident and a friend of Vishwanath — PW is,f_he~ White eoiiourii./_i

Tata Sumo and at that time, the Marut_h”i~._Car Bel.ongingi..¢tofljsianjappa

came on the road near the house of “found niiimber of
persons in the Tata Sumo and ‘”nnth:Vi.Ieapons. But, he
has not mentioned the n_arne_s the he states that
Krishnappa, Vishvraniathp and had sustained

injuries. The trial. eoiujt.1ay,eniphasis.01: the evidence of this witness
also. But, he has i’ai1ed=to “nien_tionii’tiie names of the assailants despite

the fact thagtiheis a friend ‘of Vishwanath.

inv.’Vp_th~e ;_c:ircumstariCes,—–the trial Court has simply relied on the

evidenceiofti 1i’anVd=.9 to hold that the accused have assaulted the

i v’=….v.injuredi ‘despite_th’e’i.§’a}et that PW 1 has pleaded his ignorance as to the

– ifgoyertp act of theiaecused and, PW 9 has not whispered anything about the

asi=2iult.ing the injured despite both of them claim to be eye


whether the incident has taken ptace as is narrated by them or due to

some other reason or whether they sustained injuries because ofxthe act

of strangers who had gathered on the day of the incident to offer _

Anajaneya Swaniy Temple and who were obstructed by’? iniusingvpi ”

the tand in Sy.No.7’7 to reach the Temple.

In view of the discussion made above, a1.though it doubted V

that the injured have sustained injuries incidet’it,_ thedfactfthat near
the scene of offence more than hundretiiiperisons gatheredgcannot be

lost sight of and, the witnesses whothavei’deposed”bei7Qre the Court have

spoken to the effect th.at..;_1_one “the villagers have arrived at the spot,
and coupled withthe ‘evid’enee_”‘of_”FW 8 «M Head Constable who was

present atgthccscene ‘offence that more than hundred persons had

V”gathered_xat th’e:spo’t«,,_’clearly speak to the fact that some other persons

were” also pz’esent’. [They were not examined except one or two, to

narrate about the incident.

‘._V1’_n”the circumstances, extending the benefit of doubt and also

–ho’1d’ing that the prosecution has failed to establish the case. against the


accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused are acquitted of the

offences with which they are charged. Their bail bond stands Cargcellled.

The material objects be destroyed. The fine amount be returned’ affteiri ‘4

appeal time is over.

Appeal is allowed. The Revision Petititm–fi1ed–‘_:by_:PWv ll

dismissed. v, ,

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information