Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.N. Satyanarayana, Ashok G. Nijagannavar, JJ.
State And Others - Appellants
Versus
Vinay And Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 522 and 420 of 2014 (A)
Decided On : 20-03-2020
V.S. Vinayaka, HCGP and Haleema Ameen for Vishwajith Shetty S., Advocates, for the Appellant; N.S. Sampangiramaiah, Advocate as Amicus Curiae and V.S. Vinayaka, HCGP, for the Respondent
The judgment emphasized the importance of motive in a case based on eye-witness evidence and the sufficiency of motive. It also highlighted the principles of defective investigation and the effect on the prosecution, emphasizing the need for extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence in such cases. The court ultimately found that the accused had assaulted the victims due to strained relationship and sudden provocation, leading to a conviction under Section 335 IPC.
Headnote:
Motive - Evidence Act - Recovery of Incriminating Articles - Reliability of Evidence - [MOTIVE] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [Sections 447, 323, 324, 307, 335 of IPC] - The court discussed the importance of motive in a case based on eye-witness evidence and the sufficiency of motive. It also examined the recovery of incriminating articles and the reliability of evidence, emphasizing the duty of the court to consider the trustworthiness of the evidence on record. The court highlighted the principles of defective investigation and the effect on the prosecution, emphasizing the need for extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence in such cases. The judgment focused on the need for proof beyond all reasonable doubt and the cautious scrutiny of evidence when witnesses are interested. The court ultimately found that the accused had assaulted the victims due to strained relationship and sudden provocation, leading to a conviction under Section 335 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved a quarrel between the complainant's husband, a Congress Party Member, and the accused workers of the BJP party. The accused assaulted the complainant's husband, leading to a criminal case against them under Sections 447, 323, 324, and 307 of IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to appeals by the State and the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had assaulted the victims due to strained relationship and sudden provocation, leading to a conviction under Section 335 IPC. The appeals filed by the State and the complainant were allowed in part, and the accused were sentenced to pay a fine.
Issues: The issues revolved around the motive, recovery of incriminating articles, and the reliability of evidence. The court also addressed the principles of defective investigation and the effect on the prosecution, emphasizing the need for extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the importance of motive in a case based on eye-witness evidence and the sufficiency of motive. It also highlighted the principles of defective investigation and the effect on the prosecution, emphasizing the need for extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence in such cases. The court ultimately found that the accused had assaulted the victims due to strained relationship and sudden provocation, leading to a conviction under Section 335 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the State and the complainant were allowed in part, and the accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each for the offence under Section 335 IPC, with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 to the victim. The court also appreciated and placed on record the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae and directed the Registry to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as honorarium for the services rendered by him.
JUDGMENT
Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - Criminal appeal No. 522/2014 is filed by the State represented by High Court Government Pleader. Criminal appeal No. 420/2014 is filed by the complainant. Both the appeals are against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.04.2014 passed in S.C. No. 65/2012 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru sitting at Puttur.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the complainants husband is a Congress Party Member and the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the workers of BJP party. There was a quarrel between the complainants husband and the accused in connection with display of banner in Lok-Sabha election, as such, there was a rivalry between them. On 04.03.2011, evening at about 7.00 p.m. when the complainant was in the shop along with her husband and children, the accused persons came on two motorbikes and asked her husband as to what he has said against them in the temple, when her husband informed that he has not told anything, the accused left by saying they will come later. Thereafter, at 9.10 p.m. her husband viz., P.W.2, got the call from mobile No. 9480761198 belonging to accused by name Vinay. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 came near the shop at 9.45 p.m. and picked up quarrel with her husband by saying as to what he has told in the temple against them. Then, accused No. 2 pulled her husband to the road and assaulted him with the cement asbestos sheet on his left hand right cheek, accused No. 1 assaulted him with the bamboo stick on his head. When P.W.1 tried to block the said blow, she sustained injury to her left hand small finger, her husband had sustained injury to head and left ear. P.W.1 shouted for help, by looking at C.W.4 coming to the spot, all the accused left the spot on their vehicles. Her husband P.W.2 was taken to Government Hospital Sullia from there he was shifted to Venlock Hospital Mangaluru.
3. On the complaint filed by the injured-victim Smt. Harinakshi the Police registered the case in Crime No. 31/2011. After completion of the investigation, the Police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, which was registered as C.C. No. 1491/2011.
4. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court and appearance of the accused, the charges were framed. Since the accused denied the charges leveled against them, the trial was held. The prosecution has examined, in all, 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and the documents are marked as Exs. P-1 to P-15. In the cross-examination of P.W.8, Exs. D-1 and D-2 are marked. The material objects are marked as M.Os.1 to 5.
5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges and has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the offences alleged against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, both complainant and the State have preferred the appeal.
6. The grounds urged by both the State and the complainant are similar. It is contended that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on record. The trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of injured victims and eye-witnesses in proper perspective. The trial Court has concentrated mainly on the minor contradictions and has disbelieved the evidence of some of the witnesses on the reason that they are the relatives of the victims. The evidence of the injured-victims and other eye-witnesses clearly establish the guilt of the accused. The lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be a ground to acquit the accused.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant, learned HCGP for the State and learned amicus-curiae for the accused. Perused the judgment and trial Court records.
8. Learned HCGP for the State would contend that the evidence of P.W.1-injured/complainant, P.W.2-another injured victim and eye-witnesses P.Ws.7, 8 and 10, confirm
