Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
G. Narendar, M. Nagaprasanna, JJ.
The State of Karnataka Through C.P.I – Appellant
Versus
Hanamanth S/o Narasappa Gyang and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.3555 of 2012
Decided On : 13-01-2020
For the Appellant : Sri. Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP
For the Respondent:Sri. Chaitanya Kumar C.M., Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 - Charge sheet - injuries - Whether judgment and order Court below acquitting accused is sustainable - Held, Trial Court after going through material on record has observed that prosecution has placed reliance on evidence - Though has been lined up as eyewitness to assault he has turned hostile have clearly deposed that they are hearsay witnesses - Deposition wife of deceased reveals that source of her information who himself has turned hostile - In fact has gone to extent of omitting to depose with regard to use of any weapon and he would depose that deceased was assaulted by accused with his hands and legs - Perusal of cross examination reveals that prosecution has not been successful in eliciting any fact which demonstrate culpability of accused - It is categorical statement that accused assaulted deceased with hands and legs - Accordingly trial Court has rightly held that evidence of eyewitness is not helpful to prosecution to bring home guilt of accused - Inquest panchanama witness has clearly spoken about bleeding injuries to testicles which admittedly has been noticed time of postmortem onlywho treated the deceased does not depose with regard to fact that he treated deceased for injuries suffered to testicles - Injury to the head was apparent and was treated itself – Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri. Chaitanya Kumar C.M. on behalf of the respondent-accused.
2. The State is in appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order acquitting the respondent accused by judgment dated 17.11.2011 rendered in SC No.14/2011. The case of the complainant/deceased is that, he was an agriculturist and about 15 days prior to 16.11.2010, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the wife of the first accused with regard to grazing of cattle in the complainant’s field.
3. That the third accused, on 16.11.2010 came to the house of the complainant at about 11.00 p.m. and asked the deceased to accompany him as there was some urgent work and thereafter he took him to accused No.2 who invited him to consume alcohol and thus all the accused assembled in the field of one Sangappa Anabi and consumed alcohol. That the first accused suddenly assaulted the deceased with a wooden club on the head and other parts of the body. That the other two accused have instigated the first accused and the third accused is also said to have kicked the deceased with his legs on the chest. That as a result of the assault, the deceased/complainant screamed out and upon hearing his screams, PW3 is said to have rushed to the spot and rescued the deceased. PW3 is said to have conveyed this fact to the wife of the deceased.
4. That the deceased/complainant was taken to Government Hospital and MLC intimation was sent by the Hospital Authorities to the SHO. That the SHO Gurmitkal visited the hospital and took down the complaint. The complaint was recorded on 17.11.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. and the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.183/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 R/w 24 of IPC. That the complainant/deceased passed away on 20.11.2010 and upon his demise, the police forwarded the requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate for invoking the provisions of Section 302 of IPC.
5. The matter was sent up for trial. On behalf of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.14, out of the 17 charge sheet witnesses, 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW1 to PW14 and got marked MOs 1 and 2. That thereafter an application under Section 311 came to be preferred by the prosecution for examining the doctors. The doctor who conducted the autopsy and the doctor who initially treated the deceased, when he was admitted on 17.11.2010 were examined. After closure of evidence, the accused have been examined under Section 313 on 17.10.2011 and accused have denied the incriminating circumstances in the trial. The following charges were framed by the Sessions Court.
xxx xxx
6. With regard to the first charge as to whether the death is a Homicidal death, the Court rendered a finding in the affirmative.
7. With regard to the second charge of culpability of the accused, the Sessions Court has rendered a finding in the negative. It is this finding which is contested by the appellant-State.
8. The trial Court with regard to the second charge has placed reliance on the evidence of PW12, the doctor who initially treated the deceased on 17.11.2010 and the doctor has deposed with regard to the injuries noticed by him on the date of admission and in para 15, the trial Court has extracted the injuries detailed by PW12. The PW12 has further deposed that the deceased got himself discharged from the hospital on 18.11.2010 against medical advise. The trial court has examined the evidence of PW13, who conducted the post mortem on the deceased. It is relevant to note the deceased again got himself admitted to the hospital on 19/20.11.2010. The PW13 has recorded the following external injuries, which are, multiple abrasions and contusions present on right and left arms and right and left legs i.e. at knee joint and shin and ankle joint measuring 2½ cms. PW13 has further recorded that the examination of the
