Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Somashekar, J.
Ramesh Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2010
Decided On : 22-01-2020
R. Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate, M. Divakar Maddur, Advocate
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 326 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 357(b) – Appeal against conviction – Anticipatory bail - Factual matrix of appeal is that complainant was moving on road in front of house at village - At that time accused came there and due to earlier ill-will that existed between them in relation to previous elections he abused him in filthy language by taking up his caste and started blaming that his father had foisted a false case against him and made him to attend court proceedings unnecessarily and saying so accused assaulted him with hands and legs all over his body - When CW.2 came there to save complainant accused abused him by taking his caste name and hit CW.2 with a stone which was there nearby on his head thereby causing grievous hurt - In meantime CWs.4 to 6 arrived at spot and tried to extricate quarrel – Thereafter complainant and CW.2 were taken to hospital - Upon receipt of hospital memo CW.16 PSI of Rural Police Station visited Government Hospital where CWs.1 and 2 were taking treatment and received written complaint from complainant - On basis of said complaint he registered a case against accused for aforesaid offences - Further CW.17 took up case for investigation - During course of investigation he recorded statement of witnesses and so also in the present of panch witnesses conducted spot and also secured wound certificate of CWs.1 and 2 and laid charge sheet against accused before Special court for trial – Held, At a cursory glance of her evidence as per theory put forth by prosecution and also cross-examination done by defense counsel it is to be noted that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in respect of evidence of PWs-3, 5, 6 and PW-9 who are alleged eye witnesses - But there was a grudge in between father of PW-1 and so also accused - As such incident took place according to theory put forth by prosecution and so also contents narrated in complaint - But at a cursory glance of evidence of PW-1 coupled with evidence of PW-5 there appears to be clouds of doubt - There is no dispute that PW-1 lodged a complaint making allegations against accused but doubting theory as put forth regarding M.O.1 a big sized stone said to have been seized by I.O. under Ex.P3 but same has been produced by PW-5 - Pw-10 is only witness examined by prosecution with regard to seizure of M.O.1- stone - But his evidence is not forthcoming to prove guilt of accused with regard to seizure of M.O.1 under Ex.P3 drawn by PW-13 who laid charge-sheet against accused - Trial Court has erred in not noticing that there is absolutely no evidence spoken to by PW.2 who is injured and therefore theory of prosecution that accused assaulted PW.2 appears to be clouds of doubt - It is said that PW.2 was incapable of understanding questions posed to him and incapable of giving answers to question on his examination by prosecutor before Court and therefore his evidence was dropped - Even there is no justification as to why PW.1 has not spoken about any assault committed by accused on PW.2 - PW.1 states that as soon as accused assaulted him he lost consciousness - But question arises as to how he could have stated so in his complaint if he lost conscious as soon as he was assaulted - Even though trial Court observes that learned prosecutor should have treated this witness as hostile and could have brought out in cross examination with regard to this discrepancy and that is not being done but proceeds to convict accused by holding that prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt - Further it is to be noted here that prosecution has not produced X-ray CT scan report and case sheet pertaining to injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 and that Doctor who treated PWs.1 and 2 has not been examined - It is a duty caste upon IO who investigated case to collect such documents - Trial Court has given a goby to such lapse on part of prosecution – There is no dispute that accused had caused simple hurt to PW-1 and grievous hurt to PW-2 but to prove said guilt of accused prosecution has not produced any clinching evidence – Further Trial Court has not appreciated evidence available on record in a proper perspective manner - Therefore in this appeal keeping in view grounds urged by learned counsel being appointed as Amicus Curiae for appellant it requires re-appreciation of entire evidence as where trial Court has misdirected and misinterpreted evidence of prosecution witnesses - In view of above discussion court of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to put forth cogent corroborative and acceptable evidence to probably that accused has caused injuries to PWs-1 and 2 by means of M.O.1 –Stone – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
K Somashekar, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment rendered by the Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Spl.C.No.30/2010 dated 16.08.2010 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The accused was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act. Further, the accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC and in default, to undergo SI for two months. Further, the accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and in default, to undergo SI for a period of six months. Further, for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo SI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for two years. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Further, acting under Section 357(b) Cr.P.C., a sum of Rs.8,000/- was awarded as compensation to PW.2 for the injuries sustained by him from out of the fine amount.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that complainant namely Gopi was moving on the road in front of the house of Angadi Rajanna at around 7.50 p.m on 15.10.2009, at Kurumaradikere village. At that time, accused namely Ramesh Reddy came there and due to earlier ill-will that existed between them in relation to previous elections, he abused him in filthy language by taking up his caste and started blaming that his father had foisted a false case against him and made him to attend court proceedings unnecessarily and saying so, the accused assaulted him with hands and legs all over his body. When CW.2 Parasappa came there to save the complainant, the accused abused him by taking his caste name and hit CW.2 with a stone which was there nearby on his head thereby causing grievous hurt. In the meantime, CWs.4 to 6 arrived at the spot and tried to extricate the quarrel. Thereafter, the complainant and CW.2 were taken to the hospital. Upon receipt of the hospital memo, CW.16 - the PSI of Rural Police Station visited the Government Hospital where CWs.1 and 2 were taking treatment and received written complaint from the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, he registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Further, CW.17 - Dy.SP, Chitradurga took up case for investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and so also, in the present of panch witnesses conducted spot mahazar and also secured the wound certificate of CWs.1 and 2 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Special court for trial.
4. Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet against the accused, the trial Court framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial was proceeded against the accused. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.O.1.
5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for enabling the incriminating statement appeared against him. But the accused declined the truth of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. but the contradictory statement of PW.3, PW.6 have been got marked as Exs.D1 to D5 respectively and also OPD slip as per Ex.D6 and receipt as per Ex.D7. The trial Court after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and so also the defence c
