Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
K. SOMASHEKAR, M.I. ARUN, JJ.
State of Karnataka, Represented By The Police Inspector, Kumata Police Station, Uttara Kannada District, Through The Addl. State Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
Jayaram Naik S/o. Ganapati Naik - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100020 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 326, 448, 504, 506 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 – Criminal Intimidation – Examination of accused - Accused illegally entered into the house of the complainant’s father as there was a dispute between them, and also old hatredness, the accused abused complainant’s father in a filthy language and hit him on his right arm with a wooden log resulting in fracture of a bone and he also gave life threat to the complainant’s father - Based on said allegations, after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against accused alleging commission of offences under sections 326, 448, 504, 506 of IPC - Accused has not let in any evidence nor got marked any documents. After recording the evidence, 313 statement has been recorded - Based on the evidence let in, trial Court came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused - Aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court - Held, Prosecution has canvassed that, though there are contradictions as to the deposition of PWs. 1 and 3 as to the place of incident, same needs to be treated as minor contradiction and the accused needs to be held guilty of offences alleged - They have also contended that, when there is contradiction between an eyewitness and doctor, reliance needs to be placed upon the deposition of the eyewitness and on this ground also the contractions in between the deposition of PWs.1 and 3 needs to be overlooked and accused needs to be punished - It is true that PW4 will have recorded incident that injury happened based on the statement of the victim or the police - He is not an eyewitness to the incident - To consider whether the incident happened or not, statements of eyewitnesses needs to be considered and in the process, contradictions as to the time of incident as per the evidence of PW4 can be overlooked - Deposition of PW4 – Doctor is relevant only to extent of proving the injuries suffered by PW3 and as to how it has happened. PW4 has deposed that PW3 has sustained fracture to his right arm - as to cause of injury, he has opined it might have happened due to the wooden log or even otherwise, he has further stated that there are possibilities of PW3 sustaining external injuries on the hand, if he were to be assaulted by M.O.1 as alleged and in the instant case he has not noticed any such injuries - Trial Court having accepted the second view, has given the benefit of doubt to the accused. Based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision – Court do not find it as a fit case to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. In our opinion, the trial Court based on the evidence has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt because of the contradictions and by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused has acquitted him - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.7.2017, in Criminal Case No.1128/2014, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kumta, the complainant State has preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused illegally entered into the house of the complainant’s father bearing property No.75A, situated at Kagal, Hubbanageri, at about 1.00 p.m. on 4.6.2014 and as there was a dispute between them, and also old hatredness, the accused abused the complainant’s father in a filthy language and hit him on his right arm with a wooden log resulting in fracture of a bone and he also gave life threat to the complainant’s father. Based on the said allegations, after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused alleging commission of offences under sections 326, 448, 504, 506 of IPC.
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined six witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P8(a). M.O.1 also has been marked. The accused has not let in any evidence nor got marked any documents. After recording the evidence, 313 statement has been recorded. Based on the evidence let in, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the State has preferred this appeal.
5. It is contended that the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there are material contradictions in the deposition of PW1 – complainant and PW3 – injured witness. It is contended that the said contradictions are minor in nature and cannot be considered such a great contradiction that the accused needs to be acquitted on the said ground. It is further contended that, all the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is also contended that the evidence of PW3 – injured witness has special status in law and reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baleshwar Mahto and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another Reported in (2017) 3 SCC 15226 and also in the case of Suresh Sitaram Surve Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 344. On the said ground, the prosecution has sought for setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and to convict the accused for the offences charged.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has justified the judgment passed by the trial Court and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. PW1 is the son of PW3 – injured witness. The allegation against the accused is that, the accused illegally entered the house of PW3, abused him in filthy language and assaulted on his right arm from a wooden log, which resulted in fracture, and that he threatened the victim.
8. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW1. In the said complaint, it is stated that the accused on 04.06.2014 at about 1.00 pm, when PW1 was working in the backside of his house, the accused came to their house and started quarreling with PW3. The accused took up a wooden log and tried to hit PW3. At that time, PW3 got scared and went inside the house. At that time, the accused illegally entered into their house and caught hold of PW3 and hit on his right arm from the wooden log. Immediately PW1 went inside the house and prevented further assault on PW3. Then the accused abused PW3 and PW1 in filthy language and threatened them and threw the wooden log there itself and went towards his house. Subsequently, PW3 was taken to the doctor, where it was diagnosed that he had sustained fracture. In his deposition, PW1 has stated that he was working in the backyard of his house at about 1.00 pm on 04.06.2014. The accused came to their house and started abusing PWs. 1 and 3 in filthy language and quarreled with PW3. PW3 to avoid the quarrel went inside the house. At that time, the accused illegally entered into the house and hit PW3 on his rig
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
