Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAN M SHANTANAGOUDAR, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, JJ.
RAMESH - APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE BY KUNIGAL POLICE & Anr. - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINALAPPEALNO. 254 OF 2011
Decided On : 19-1-2015
SRI.GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.
SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1, SRI ANIL KUMAR N.S., AMICUS CURIAE FOR R.2
The main legal point established is that the court must carefully evaluate witness testimony and medical evidence to determine the nature of injuries and the accused's intention, ensuring that the evidence supports the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Assault - IPC 326, IPC 307 - The court acquitted the accused of the charges under IPC 326 and IPC 307, and convicted him under IPC 324. The court found that the victim sustained simple injuries and that there was no evidence to prove grievous injuries or an intention to commit murder. The accused was fined Rs.7,500.
Fact of the Case:
The victim and the accused, who were neighbors, had a boundary dispute. The accused assaulted the victim with a sickle, causing severe injuries. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the trial court's acquittal unjustified and convicted the accused under IPC 324, imposing a fine of Rs.7,500. The court noted discrepancies in witness testimony but found the evidence of the victim and another witness consistent and reliable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was guilty of the charges under IPC 326 and IPC 307, considering the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency and reliability of the victim and witness testimony, noting that minor discrepancies did not discredit their version. The court also emphasized the lack of evidence to prove grievous injuries or an intention to commit murder.
Final Decision: The accused was convicted under IPC 324 and fined Rs.7,500, with the entire fine amount to be paid to the victim as compensation.
The judgment and order of acquittal dated 3.11.2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Tumkur, in S.C.No.115/2008 is called in question by the injured in the incident which gave rise to the matter on hand.
The sole accused/respondent No.2 was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. The trial Court has acquitted the accused.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that; there was animosity in between the injured PW2 (Mr.Ramesh appellant) and accused since a long time; their houses are adjoining each other; even the agricultural land is adjoining each other, PW2 was tethering the cattle on the bund of the agricultural land of the accused and injured at about 9.30 a.m. on 3.11.2007; PW2 had tied his cattle with the help of ropes; the accused being annoyed by the said act cut the ropes tied to the cattle; PW2 took exception to it and there was verbal altercation between the two; the accused who was having sickle in his hand assaulted on the face of PW2, consequent upon which PW2 sustained severe bleeding injury on the nose and on the forehead; he was immediately taken to the Government hospital at Kunigal; the doctor PW7 gave first aid treatment to PW2 and referred the patient to Victoria hospital, Bangalore, for higher treatment; thereafter the victim has taken treatment in Victoria hospital and said to have undergone plastic surgery over the nose.
3. In the meanwhile, PW1 Muniraja the friend of PW2 who witnessed the incident, lodged the first information before Kunigal police station, Kunigal, as per Ex.P1 at about 2.30 p.m. on 3.11.2007, which came to be registered by the Head Constable of the police station (PW8) in Crime No.289/2007 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. The PSI of the police station (PW6) took over investigation and after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet.
4. As aforementioned, the accused was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC.
5. In order to prove his case, prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses and marked 9 Exhibits and two material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined.
6. PWs,1, 3, 4 and 10 are the witnesses to the incident in question. PW2 is the injured eyewitness. PW5 is the witness for scene of offence; Panchanama Ex.P2; M.O.1 sickle was seized from the spot. He has also deposed about the seizure of M.O.1 and the sickle, as well as the blood stain clothes of the injured (MO2). PW6 is the investigating officer who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. PW7 is the doctor working at hospital in Kunigal. She has given first aid treatment to the victim and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P3 on 19.12.2007. PW8 is the Head Constable. He registered the crime based on the complaint lodged by PW1. He has also recorded the further statement of the complainant as per Ex.P6. PW9 is the PSI. He conducted part of the investigation. PW10 as aforementioned is the eyewitness to the incident. However, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
7. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the ocular testimony of PW1 and PW2, coupled with the evidence of the doctor PW7. PWs.3, 4 and 10 are stated to be the eyewitnesses.
8. We find from the evidence that the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused. PWs.3 and 4 have admitted in their cross-examination that they came to the spot after the incident. Both these witnesses have deposed that when they reached the spot, the injured had already sustained injuries and that a cloth was tied on his face. As aforementioned PW10 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution inasmuch as he did not support the case of prosecution relating to the incident in question.
9. Thus what remains is, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. We do not find any ground to agree with the reasons assigned by the Court below to disbelieve PW2. He is an injured eyewitness. The respondent is a sole accused. The version of PW2 during the course
