SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
K. Somashekar, Anant Ramanath Hegde, JJ.
The State of Karnataka, Through Deval Ganagapur Police Station, Represented by its Addl. State Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Shekhappa S/o Ningappa Rummagol and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.200047 of 2014
Decided On : 16-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP
For the Respondent:Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate

Point of Law : Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even minor contradiction and inconsistency in the testimony of an injured eyewitness do not make him an untrustworthy and unreliable witness.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 448, 504 and 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 209 , 207 378 (1) & (3) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Trespassed Into House - Abused In a Filthy Language - Caused Injuries - Complainant-Suresh along with his family members namely CWs.6 to 9 were all present inside house and were watching television - Accused No.1- and accused No.2- alleged to have trespassed into their house and abused complainant in a filthy language and insisted he minimizes television sound or switch off television - It is said that there was some exchange of words between complainant and accused - It is further alleged that all accused having trespassed into house of complainant again abused complainant and others in filthy language and accused No.2- allegedly assaulted complainant with an axe on his head and caused injuries.

Finding of the Court: In absence of evidence of medical officer of Vatsalya Hospital who has given treatment to injured persons trial Court has concluded that prosecution did not make any endeavour to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt relating to injuries inflicted and injuries inflicted with means of M.Os.1 to 4 alleged to have been used by accused - Case of prosecution suffers from inconsistencies, discrepancies and there is a delay in recording complaint and even transmitting FIR to Court - These aspects have been discussed by trial Court and concluded that prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt - Therefore, there are no grounds for interference with acquittal judgment rendered by trial Court - Therefore for aforesaid reasons and findings, Court is of considered opinion that acquittal judgment rendered by trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity or any infirmity calling for any interference.

Result: Appeal rejected.

JUDGMENT :

K. Somashekar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in Sessions Case No.180/2011 dated 25/27.09.2013, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 323, 324, 307, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. This appeal is preferred by the State with a prayer set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial court and to convict the accused of the offences for which the charges levelled against them.

3. Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State and the learned counsel Sri Shivasharana Reddy for respondent Nos.2 to 6. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court in Sessions Case No.180/2011 and the records consisting of the evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and so also the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 inclusive of MOs.1 to 4.

4. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:-

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 06.06.2010 at around 9.30 p.m. when the complainant-Suresh along with his family members namely CWs.6 to 9 were all present inside the house and were watching the television. Then the accused No.1-Shekhappa and accused No.2-Ningappa alleged to have trespassed into their house and abused the complainant in a filthy language and insisted he minimizes the television sound or switch off the television. It is said that there was some exchange of words between the complainant and the accused. It is said that later accused Nos.1 and 2 have turned to their house. It is further alleged that later again the accused entered into the house of the complainant along with the co-accused No.3 -Laxman and accused No.6-Parvati by holding deadly weapons such as axe, jambiya and clubs to kill the complainant.

It is further alleged that all the accused having trespassed into the house of the complainant again abused the complainant and others in filthy language and accused No.2-Ningappa allegedly assaulted the complainant with an axe on his head and caused injuries. It is alleged accused No.3-Laxman stabbed the complainant with Jambiya. It is said that CW.9-Bailappa intervened to rescue the complainant. However, accused No.3-Laxman assaulted CW.9-Bailappa on his left side shoulder and caused a bleeding injury. Accused No. 2 Ningappa was also alleged to have assaulted CW.9-Bailappa with an axe on the backside of his head and caused some bleeding injuries. Accused No.1-Shekhappa assaulted CW.8-Laxman with a club on his left ear and also on the forehead as a result of that caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.1-Shekhappa alleged to have assaulted CW.8-Laxman with the club on his left ear and also on the forehead as a result of that caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.1 assaulted CW.6-Vijayakumar with a club on his head and also on the forehead and right shoulder. Accused No.5-Devakki alleged to dragged Savita by pulling her hair. Accused No.6 is alleged to have assaulted Savita with a club below her thigh and also on her back.

On the filing of a complaint by the complainant criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.54/2010 by Devalganagapur Police Station for the offences reflected in the first information report (FIR). Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.52/2011 to the court of Civil Judge and JFMC, Afzlapur.

5. After the filing of the charge-sheet against the accused by the investigating officer and the case was committed to the court of Sessions under Sections 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by following the provision of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the case is registered as S.C.No.180/2011.

6. Sessions court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top