Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 1150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
D.V. Shylendra Kumar and H.S. Kempanna, JJ.
State of Karnataka By Central Police Station —Appellant
Vs.
Srinivasamurthy and others —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 1027 of 2007 (DB-A)
Decided on : 31-10-2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, HCGP, For the Appellant
M/s. R.P. Chandrashekar, C.H. Hanumantharaya and G. Suresh, for the Respondents, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented must inspire confidence to place reliance on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Headnote:
Section 307 - Attempt to murder - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, Section 378(1) and (3)] - The court acquitted the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to commit murder of PW1 by assaulting him with a knife, fisting on his nose, and kicking him with his leg. The court found that the genesis of the prosecution case had been suppressed, and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence to place reliance on their testimonies. The court concluded that there was no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents/Accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It is alleged that on 11-11-2002, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, attempted to commit murder of PW1 on account of previous enmity. The accused were acquitted by the trial Judge due to failure of the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the genesis of the prosecution case had been suppressed, and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence to place reliance on their testimonies.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the prosecution had established that the accused attempted to commit murder of PW1 and whether the impugned judgment and order under appeal called for any interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the genesis of the prosecution case had been suppressed, and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not inspire confidence to place reliance on their testimonies. Therefore, the court found no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal by the state was dismissed, and the court upheld the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.—This appeal by the state preferred under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-2-2007 passed in SC No 694 of 2004, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore city, acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are:-
The respondents/Accused were tried on the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It is alleged that on 11-11-2002 at about 8.00 pm at No 104, Gram Seva Sangha, situated on R.V. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention of committing murder of PW1 R Vinay, on account of previous enmity that existed between them, A-1 stabbed with a knife on the neck of PW1, A-2 fisted with hands on his nose and kicked him with his leg, A-3 stabbed with a knife on his back and left side of the stomach, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, if by that act they had caused death of PW1, they would have been guilty of murder and thereby they have committed the aforesaid offence.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that there is a temple of the deity Sri. Bisilmarmma and Sri Anjaneya Swamy which is commonly known as Upparahalli Grama Devathe situated at No. 104, Grama Seva Sangha, R.V. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore. Surrounding the temple premises there are shop premises which are in the occupation of the tenants including Al, PW1 and his father PW5 in the case. The administration of the said temple is managed by a trust comprising of Executive Committee members.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that Al, who is the father of A2 and A3, was the president of the said temple trust since a long time and was in charge of the administration. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW1 is the son of PW5 who is cousin of Al.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the year 2002, Al on account of his ill-health resigned to the post of President of the temple trust and, therefore, a new committee of the management was elected for the administration of the temple trust and in the said election, PW4 was elected as President of the trust, PWs 1, 2, 5, 7 to 10 and A2 were elected as members of the committee of management of the trust.
6. It is further the case of the prosecution that after the new committee of management was elected, a meeting was convened in the temple premises on 10.11.2002. Al did not attend the said meeting. On the other hand his son A2 who was member of the newly elected committee attended the said meeting. In the said meeting it was resolved by the committee that all the temple properties which comprised of 14 shops which are in the occupation of different tenants including Al, PW1 and PW5 should be got vacated and made available to the temple trust for the purpose of building a complex. As per the resolution all the tenants except Al agreed to vacate the shops which were in their occupation to enable the trust to build a complex. As Al was not present in the said meeting, a further meeting was convened on 11.11.2002, i.e., on the next day at about 6 p.m. in the temple premises in order to request Al to hand over the jewels of the deities of the temple and also to request him to vacate the shop which was in his occupation.
7. Accordingly, on 11.11.2002 the newly elected members of the managing Committee of the trust which comprised of PWs 1,2,4,5,7 to 10 and A2 assembled for the meeting. It is the case of the prosecution Al who was ailing was brought to the said meeting by his son A3, who after allowing Al to attend the meeting stood outside the temple premises. After the meeting commenced, Al handed over all the jewels of the deity to the newly elected President PW4. Thereafter as Al had not attended the previous day’s meeting, the elected members requested Al to vacate the shop premises which was in his occupation to enable the temple t
