Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 790
High Court of Karnataka
N. ANANDA, J.
Rasheed Khan & Others
Versus
State of Karnataka by Magadi Police
Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2007
Decided On : 06-12-2013
For the Appellants:V.G. Ravindra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: B.T. Venkatesh, SPP-II.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offence. The court carefully evaluated the evidence and found that the prosecution successfully proved the accused's guilt in assaulting the witnesses.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault - Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The court discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused, the medical evidence, and the long-standing dispute between the parties. The court found that the prosecution proved that the accused had assaulted the witnesses with deadly weapons and caused injuries. The court confirmed the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and modified the sentence by imposing a fine and granting compensation to the injured witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were tried for various offences including assault under Section 324 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the witnesses by assaulting them with dangerous weapons. The court heard the arguments from the counsel for the accused and the State Public Prosecutor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved that the accused had assaulted the witnesses with deadly weapons and caused injuries. The court confirmed the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and modified the sentence by imposing a fine and granting compensation to the injured witnesses.
Issues: 1) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the witnesses by assaulting them with dangerous weapons? 2) Whether the trial judge properly appreciated the evidence on record?
Ratio Decidendi: The court carefully scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and the long-standing dispute between the parties. It found that the prosecution proved that the accused had assaulted the witnesses with deadly weapons and caused injuries.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted in part. The judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC was confirmed, but the sentence was modified by imposing a fine and granting compensation to the injured witnesses.
1. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused no.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 and 11) along with accused no.4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324 r/w 149 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The learned Sessions judge acquitted accused no.1 to 13 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions judge acquitted accused no.4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
The learned Sessions judge convicted accused no.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 and 11 for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Therefore, accused no.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 and 11 are before this court.
3. I have heard Sri.B.G.Ravindra, learned counsel for accused and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The learned SPP would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal against impugned judgment as it relates to acquittal of accused as aforestated.
5. Therefore, the points that would arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused no.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 and 11 voluntarily caused hurt to PW's.1 to 5 by assaulting them with dangerous weapons at about 8.30 p.m., on 12.12.2002 near the house of accused no.1 in Basappana Doddi village within the limits of Magadi Taluk, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC? 5
2) Whether the learned trial judge has property appreciated the evidence on record?
3) To what order ?
6. My findings on the above points and reasons thereon are as follows:
The evidence of PW.1 and evidence of DW.1 and documents relied upon by the parties would reveal that; there was long standing dispute between the family members of PW.1 and DW.1 in relation to a path way. It is the case of accused that PW.1 was not allowing them to move on the path way to reach the lands of accused no.1. In connection with this dispute, several panchayats were held.
7. On 14.09.2000, the elders of village had convened a panchayat in the presence of some of the prosecution witnesses and accused wherein, PW.1 and other family members had agreed to leave path way to accused no.1 and his family members.
It is also admitted by PW.1 that he had initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it can safely be held that the parties, in particular, the injured witnesses and accused were not in cordial terms and there was pre-existing enmity between them. In view of this, the evidence of prosecution witnesses including injured witnesses needs a careful scrutiny before it is accepted.
8. PW.1-Kemparaju has deposed; that on the date of incident viz., 12.12.2002 at about 8.30 p.m., when he was in the house, PW.12-Kemparaju, S/o Junjaiah and PW.13- Mariyappa came to his house and told that PW.2 can settle the dispute with accused no.1, so saying, PW.12 and 13 took PW.2-Thimma Bovi (father of PW.1) to the house of accused no.1 which is at a distance of 150 meters from the house of PW.1.
After sometime, PW.1 heard the noise of galata near the house of accused no1. PW.1 rushed to the house of accused no.1. Accused no.1 and other accused had surrounded PW.2 (father of PW.1) and were making galata. When PW.1 tried to rescue his father (PW.2), accused no.9 assaulted on the head of PW.1 with a chopper. PW.1 suffered bleeding injuries.
9. The evidence of PW.8-Dr.V.N.Malali would reveal that he had examined PW.1 at 11.30 p.m., on 12.12.2002 in Government Hospital at Magadi and found following injuries:
1. Incised wound on the top of the scalp measuring 4 cms x 6 cms
2. Contusion on the back measuring 4 cms x 6 cms PW.1 has deposed that accus
