Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. Pinto, J.
Chinnappaiah @ Honga S/o. Huddiranjappa — Appellant
Vs.
State by Gauribidanur Rural Police — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2004
Decided on : 01-03-2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K. Nagabhushana Reddy and Associates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Vijayakumar Majage, H.C.G.P., for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Accused - Criminal Law - IPC 354, IPC 323 - The court discussed the evidence and arguments related to the offences under Section 354 and 323 of IPC. The prosecution presented evidence of injuries and the accused's lack of explanation for his injuries, while the defense highlighted discrepancies in the complaint and witness testimony. The court found that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appealed a judgment convicting him for offences under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed rape and caused injury to the victim's husband. The defense denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the complaint and witness testimony, lack of authentic information, and inconsistencies in the evidence. It concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Issues: Discrepancies in complaint and witness testimony, authenticity of information, and lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for authentic information and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, highlighting discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The accused's appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the offences. Bail bonds, if any, were to be cancelled, and the fine amount, if deposited, was to be refunded to the accused.
B.V. Pinto, J.— This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment, dated 12.2.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Kolar convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and to suffer imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, with default clauses.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.10.1996 at about 8.00 a.m., near the tank premises at Narasapura village within the limits of Gowribidanur Rural Police Station, accused committed rape on PW-5, Lakshmamma by dragging her in a Hongebeli grove and caused forcible intercourse with her and thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376 of IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on coming to know of the incident, when PW-5 went along with her husband PW-6 to question the accused, the accused is alleged to have caused bleeding injury on the husband of victim by means of a sickle thereby he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 324 of IPC.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all, 11 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and he has got marked Ex.D-1, the portion of statement of PW6. The prosecution also has produced the sickle, which is marked as M.O.1. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of the offence under Section 376 of IPC but convicted him as afore stated and sentenced him accordingly.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal.
5. Heard Sri Hari Prasad, learned Counsel for accused and Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader.
6. The learned Counsel for accused submits that there is vast discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 as compared to the averments made in the complaint The complaint has been typewritten and the complainant and her husband have gone to the police station with a prepared complaint as per Ex.P-4. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved PWs.5 and 5, in so far as offence under Section 376 of IPC is concerned and it is not safe to convict the Appellant for offence under Section 354 or 323 of IPC. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed.
7. The learned Government Pleader submits that the evidence of PW-5 is supported by the evidence of DRs. PW.2 Dr. Vidya Kebbar and PW.3 Dr. J.N. Raju and the wound certificates as per Exs.P-2 and P-3. Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate issued in respect of PW-5, which indicates presence of abrasions on the person of PW-5, while she was examined on 7.12.1996 itself. Ex.P-3 further indicates that the accused also had suffered scratch marks on his person and he was also examined by the Doctor on 8.10.1996. The accused has not explained the reason for the injuries on his person and therefore, the presence and participation of the accused in the commission of the offence is proved by the prosecution. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. He submits that though the learned Sessions Judge has not mentioned in the last part of the judgment regarding seizure and marking of M.O.1 sickle, the evidence of PWs-9 and 11 clearly indicates that the sickle has been seized by the police and is marked as M.O.1. He further submits that Ex.P-1 issued by PW-1 mentioned that injuries are caused with sickle by Chinnappaiah, the accused in this case. Hence, he submits that offence under Section 323 IPC and 354 IPC are made out from the evidence of the prosecution witness and therefore, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
8. The prosecution in this case has commenced with the filing of a complaint by PW-5 Lakshmamma before the Gowribidanur police station on 7.10.1996
