Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.
H.K. Umesh S/O Kariappa —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2004(c)
Decided on : 16-01-2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Smt. Parinitha S. Channal, for the Appellants, for the Appellant
Mr. P. Karunakar, HCGP, For the Respondent
The evidence of an injured eyewitness carries more weightage and can be the sole basis for conviction. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not a rule of evidence.
Headnote:
Conviction - Assault - IPC 341, 324, 307, 34 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the injuries sustained by the victim, the recovery of the weapons used in the assault, and the identification of the assailants. The court found that the evidence of the injured eyewitness was credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. However, it held that there was no evidence to establish the complicity of two of the accused in the assault, leading to their acquittal. The judgment modified the conviction and sentences of the remaining accused based on their individual acts.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for offences under IPC Sections 341, 324, 307 read with Section 34 based on the prosecution's case that they wrongfully restrained, abused, and assaulted the victim with a club and a firearm, resulting in injuries to the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the injured eyewitness to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It also found that there was no evidence to establish the complicity of two of the accused in the assault, leading to their acquittal. The court modified the conviction and sentences of the remaining accused based on their individual acts.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the judgment suffered from perversity or illegality and whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The injured eyewitness's evidence was found to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also held that there was no evidence to establish the complicity of two of the accused in the assault, leading to their acquittal. The judgment modified the conviction and sentences of the remaining accused based on their individual acts.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against two of the accused and modifying the conviction and sentences of the remaining accused based on their individual acts.
K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.3/1999 on the file of Fast Track Court-I, Chikmagalur is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2001 passed in the said ease convicting the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Section 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, six months and four years respectively for the aforesaid offences and also to pay fine.
2. The appellants/accused were charge sheeted by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bankal Police Station, Chickmagalur District for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act interaiia alleging that at about 11.00 p.m. on 28.12.1997, when P.W. 1 Annugowda was walking towards his village, near Chanduvalli gate at a distance of half furlong from Kottigefaara village, accused Nos. 1 to 4 by sharing common intention) wrongfully restrained him from proceeding further, abused him in filthy language since he had failed to repay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- due to accused No. 1. and then accused No. 2 assaulted P.W. 1 with a club on the head and when P.W. 1 tried to run away from that place, accused No. 1 with an intention to commit his murder fired at him with a rifle there by caused gun shot injuries to P.W. 1 and thereby, the accused committed the alleged offences.
3. According to the prosecution on 28.12.1997, P.W. 1 after collecting a sum of Rs. 3.000/- from P.W. 6-Bhaskar, at about 10.00 p.m. left Tatagodu village and when he was proceeding towards his village along with P.Ws. 2 and 3, the accused by wrongly restraining him committed act of assault on P.W. 1 and immediately P.Ws. 2 and 3 took the injured to P.Ws. 4 and 5, informed them about the incident and thereafter P.Ws. 4 and 5 shifted the inured to Primary Health Center at Banakal village where the Medical Officer gave first aid treatment and informed the police. On receipt of Ex. P9-memo, P.W. 11, the ASI visited the Hospital and recorded statement of P.W. 1 about the incident as per Ex. P1 and based on Ex. P1, he registered the case in Crime No. 129/1997 against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and two others, and took up the investigation. During investigation, P.W. 11 visited the scene of occurrence, conducted Spot Mahazar-Ex. P2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and seized the club-M.O. 1 said to have been used in the commission of offence by accused No. 2. P.W. 12-PSI took up further investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 18.6.1998, accused No. l appeared before P.W. 12 along with the copy of the anticipatory bail order. At that time, the accused No. 1 said to have made voluntary statement which was reduced into writing as per Ex. P11 and at his instance, the gun was recovered from his house as per M.O.2 in the presence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 and Seizure Mahazar as per Ex»P8 was drawn. Thereafter, the seized rifle was subjected to Ballistic examination and report was received as per Ex. P14, The injured had been shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore for further treatment and during investigation, P.W. 12 received the wound certificate as per Ex. P12 from M.G.M, Hospital, Mudigere. P.W. 13 took up further investigation and on completing investigations, filed the charge sheet.
4. Upon committal, the accused appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge had framed charges only for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, There was no charge for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arm Act as alleged in the charge sheet. After the prosecution closed its side of evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The acc
