Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 831
High Court of Karnataka
N. ANANDA, J.
Rajesh & Others
Versus
The State of Karnataka rep. by Police Sub-Inspector Kushalnagar Police Station
Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 2008
Decided On : 19-12-2013
For the Appellants:Sandeep Patil, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Narayana Reddy, SPP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistent evidence from multiple witnesses in cases involving a large number of offenders and victims.
Headnote:
Assault - Criminal Law - IPC 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 - The court analyzed the evidence and found that accused no.1 to 5 were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC. Accused no.5 was acquitted of offences punishable under Section 324 and 326 r/w 149 IPC. Accused no.1 and 3 were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC. Accused no.2 and 4 were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were tried and convicted for various offences including assault with deadly weapons and forming an unlawful assembly. The case revolved around a quarrel between the parties, resulting in injuries to the prosecution witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence and acquitted accused no.1 to 5 of certain offences, while convicting accused no.1 and 3 for an offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC, and accused no.2 and 4 for an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
Issues: The issues included determining the participation of the accused in forming an unlawful assembly, using force, and committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence involving a large number of offenders and victims, the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted in part, resulting in the acquittal of accused no.1 to 5 of certain offences, and the conviction of accused no.1 and 3 for an offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC, and accused no.2 and 4 for an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
1. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused no.1 to 5) were tried and convicted for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC. Therefore, they are before this court.
2. I have heard Sri.Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for accused and learned State Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: Accused no.1 to 4 are the sons of accused no.5. They are natives of Mullusoge village, Kushalnagar Taluk. The prosecution witnesses namely PW.3-Shekara and PW.7- Jagannatha and direct brothers and CW.6-Puttamma is the mother of PW.3 and PW.7; PW.8-Puttaraju and PW.9- Dinesha are the brothers. PW.6-M.T.Raghu is the son of PW.5-M.K.Thimmappa.
It appears there was enmity between PW.5- M.K.Thimmappa and afore stated prosecution witnesses on one side and the accused on other side. On 26.07.2000, there was a quarrel between the parties in relation to which some of the accused had filed first information.
4. It is the case of prosecution that on 27.07.2000 at about 8.30 a.m., when PW.3, 6 to 9 were proceeding in front of the house of accused, they were wrongfully restrained by accused. Accused no.1-Rajesha stabbed on the stomach of PW.7-Jagannatha with a knife and accused no.3-Prasanna stabbed on the stomach of PW.8-Puttaraju. Accused no.2, 4 and 5 assaulted PW's.3, 6 and 9 with clubs and caused injuries to them. The injured were shifted to Government Hospital at Kushalnagar, after preliminary treatment, they were treated in K.R. Hospital at Mysore. The first information in relation to incident of assault was lodged by PW.6- M.T.Raghu.
5. In view of conviction of accused no.1 to 5 for the afore stated offences, points that would arise for determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 27.07.2000 at about 8.30 a.m., near the house of accused, accused no.1 to 5 had formed an unlawful assembly with the intention of attempt to commit murder of PW's.3 and 9, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 143 IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no.1 to 5 being the members of unlawful assembly used force and committed rioting, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction as mentioned in points no.1 & 2, accused armed with deadly weapons had used deadly weapons to commit rioting, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no.1 and 3 being the members of unlawful assembly stabbed on the stomach of PW.7 and PW.8 with such intention and knowledge that if they had caused death of PW's.7 and 8, they would have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, thereby accused no.1 to 5 have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no.2, 4 and 5 assaulted PW's.3, 6 and 9 with clubs and caused hurt to them, thereby accused no.2, 4 and 5 have committed an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC 6) Whether the learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record?
7) To what order ?
6. The independent witnesses namely PW's.7 and 12 have not supported the case of prosecution. PW's.2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 who were examined to prove seizure of incriminating articles, have not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, prosecution has relied on evidence of injured witnesses and medical evidence given by PW.1.
7. It is seen from the evidence of PW.6-Raghu that accused no.1 to 3 had filed the first information alleging that on 26.07.2000 at about 8.30 p.m., some of the prosecution witnesses had entered the house of accused and held out threats to their life. PW.6 has admitted that the accused had filed first information alleging that some of the prosecution witnesses had as
