Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. Pinto, J.
Prabhu and Others — Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1645 of 2004 (SJ)
Decided on : 01-02-2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. S.K. Venkata Reddy, for the Appellants, for the Appellant.
Mr. Raja Subramanya Bhat, For the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of clear and cogent evidence in establishing criminal trespass and highlighted the use of a weapon as a key factor in upholding the assault charges.
Headnote:
Criminal Trespass - Assault - Sections 447, 341, 323, 324 IPC - The court found the accused guilty of criminal trespass under Section 341 IPC and assault under Section 324 IPC. The conviction under Section 447 IPC was set aside due to lack of clear evidence of exclusive possession. The court imposed a fine on the accused for the upheld charges.
Fact of the Case:
The accused trespassed and assaulted the complainant while he was doing agricultural work on a disputed land. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial court, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the conviction under Section 447 IPC due to lack of clear evidence of exclusive possession. The court confirmed the conviction under Section 341 and 324 IPC, but replaced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment with a fine.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership, criminal trespass, assault, and the credibility of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence did not support the conviction under Section 447 IPC but upheld the convictions under Sections 341 and 324 IPC based on witness testimony and the use of a weapon.
Final Decision: The appeal against one of the accused abated. The conviction under Section 447 IPC was set aside, and the accused were acquitted. The conviction under Sections 341 and 324 IPC was confirmed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was replaced with a fine.
B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused in S.C. No. 85/01 challenging the judgment dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court III, Tumkur, convicting the appellants of the offence under Sections 447 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and further imposing a fine of Rs. 500/- each for offence under Section 341 IPC and further convicting them for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and further convicting them for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentencing to them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each, with default clauses.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.6.2000 at, about 9 a.m. within the limits of Dandinashivara Police Station, accused 2 and 3 alongwith the deceased A1 in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal trespass by entering into their land bearing Sy. No. 24/1 of Kolghatta village belonging to C.W. 1 M. Shivabasappa and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 read with 34 IPC.
3. It is further alleged that on the said date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention of A2 and A3 alongwith deceased A1 wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 341 IPC.
4. It is further charged against them that at the aforesaid date, time and place the accused caused voluntary hurt to C.W. 1 thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC.
5. It is further charged against the accused that A1 deceased alongwith A2 and A3 assaulted C.W. 1 with the sickle and caused injuries to him with an intention to cause his death and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC.
6. It is further alleged that on the said date, time and place, the accused have caused grievous hurt to C.W. 1 thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC.
7. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to P5 and produced M.Os. 1 to 5. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the judgment. impugned in this appeal, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused and to sentence them as hereinabove mentioned. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused.
8. Heard Smt. Nalina for Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Raja Suibramanya Bhat, learned HCGP for State.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is A1 who was holding the weapon as per the prosecution case and the allegations are that A2 has held the victim P.W. 1 and A3 has fisted him. Therefore, the act of A2 and A3 will not amount to offence of either under Section 324 or 323 IPC. It is further submitted that the weapon in this case has not been seized from proper place and, therefore, the offence as alleged cannot be held to be proved against A2 and A3. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that A2 and A3 are entitled for order of acquittal.
10. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that the evidence as tendered by the prosecution through P.Ws. 1 and 2 clearly goes to show that the accused has committed assault by weapon and has caused grievous injuries to P.W. 1. He submits that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court does not call for interference. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
11. The prosecution in this case is commenced with one Shivabasaiah filing a complaint before the Dandinashivara Police Station on 30.6.2000 at about 11.30 in the night. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that there is dispute between himself and A2 Prabhu, in respect of property in Sy. No. 24/1 of Kologhatta village. There is civil suit pending in the Court since about 4 to 5 years and on 30.6.2000, Friday morning at about
