Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, JJ.
T.V. Manjunatha S/o Late Venkataiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2067 of 2016
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Kodandaramegowda.
For the Respondent: Vijaykumar Majage.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 498A, 307, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 209, 233 – Criminal case – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Attempt to murder – Power to examine the accused – Expedite the trial of sessions case – Appeal, seeking consideration of grounds narrated in appeal memorandum and praying for setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by trial court in aforementioned case for aforesaid offences and convicted accused for said offences – Held, Case as against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 has ended in acquittal even though they were facing trial for offences equally with Accused No. 1/appellant namely T.V – When on benefit of doubt the case has been ended in acquittal, that benefit of doubt should be extended to this accused T.V. – If not, certainly gravamen of accused would be sufferer and it would result in a miscarriage of justice – Therefore, in view of aforesaid reasons and findings, Court are of opinion that in this appeal it requires interference whereby accused are deserving for acquittal since prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence in terms of cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabilise that accused T.V, that is her husband had caused burn injuries over her person as indicated in Wound Certificate issued by Doctor and also pouring kerosene over her person and set her ablaze and also extending some sort of physical as well as mental harassment – This contention is made by learned counsel for appellant seeking intervention in this impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence – Even though this contention has been taken into consideration, but case of prosecution appears to be with clouds of doubt – Consequently, appellant/Accused No. 1 T.V. deserves for acquittal from offences levelled against him – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
1. In this appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2016 rendered by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in SC No. 5040/2014 and whereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whereas, in this appeal, seeking consideration of the grounds narrated in the appeal memorandum and praying for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in the aforementioned case for the aforesaid offences and convicted the accused for the said offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. V. Kodandaramegowda for the appellant/accused, also the Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in SC No. 5040/2014.
4. The factual matrix of the case are as under:
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 16.11.2013, Smt. Devarajamma who is the complainant and who is none other than the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha, whereby she has approached Badavanahalli Police Station in Tumakuru District and based upon her complaint, the case in Crime No. 83/2013 was registered against the appellant/accused and four others for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 307, 498A read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She has stated in her complaint against the accused that on 14.11.2013 at around 9.30 p.m. when she was present in the house with her husband T.V. Manjunatha who is arraigned as an accused, he asked her to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents' house so that he would get her a job in Literacy Department. When the complainant refused to bring money, the accused at the instigation of his mother and sisters suddenly abused the complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted on her mouth, face, causing pain and pulled her hair. When she fell down, he kicked her, while crying she got up by then, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze to eliminate her. When she was crying due to burns, the appellant/accused doused fire and took her to the Badavanahalli Government Hospital and then to the District Hospital at Tumkur, where she got admitted as an in-patient for the burn injuries sustained on her hands, neck, right cheek and stomach. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also on the filing of a complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No. 83/2013 by recording an FIR.
5. Subsequently, the case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and whereby PW-6 - Parthasarathy who registered the case by recording an FIR as per Ex.P8. PW-9 being an Investigating Officer who has done entire investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons before the committal court. Subsequently, the case has been committed by the committal court by passing an order as contemplated under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the case in SC No. 5040/2014 has been filed and then the accused has been secured for facing up of trial. The Trial court has heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to framing of charges and prima facie found the charges framed against the accused for the offences which are reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. The accused did not plead guilty, who claims to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused had been recorded separately.
6. Subsequent to framing of charges against the accused, the prosecution in all entering into examination of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and accordingly, PWs. 1 to 9 having been examined and also got marked several documents at Exs.P1 to 11 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2.
7. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution and whereby the accused was subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C
