Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
T.K. Lakshmi Narasimhamurthy and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2012
Decided on : 20-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Sri. R.Nagendra Naik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri B. Lakshman, HCGP
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused, leading to their acquittal under Section 323 IPC due to insufficient evidence and the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, and 34 - Conviction and sentence for causing hurt - Accused Nos.2 and 3 acquitted of the charge under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC due to lack of evidence and contradictions in witness statements - The trial court's findings were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the appeal's allowance. (Paras 4, 15, 22)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving counter allegations - The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing guilt. (Paras 20, 23)
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with assaulting the first informant and his family members on 31.12.2010 due to prior enmity, but the trial court found insufficient evidence to support the charges.
Findings of Court:
The evidence was re-evaluated, revealing contradictions and insufficient proof of intent to harm, leading to the conclusion that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the adequacy of evidence to support the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide reliable evidence and the existence of counter allegations led to the acquittal of the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Nawaz, J. - This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 against their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Appeal against appellant No.1 has been dismissed as abated.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the evidence and material on record.
3. The charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2012, passed in S.C.No.229/2011, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the charges leveled against them under Sections 324, 506, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted under Section 323 read with Section34 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31.12.2010 at about 9.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 along with a juvenile in conflict with law, with a common intention to commit the offence, came in front of the house of the first informant/P.W.-1, armed with clubs and chopper and quarreled with PW-1, his son-PW-2, his son-in-law PW-3 and wife of PW-1 i.e., PW-7 on account of previous enmity assaulted and caused injuries to them etc., and thereby committed the charged offences.
6. Before the trial Court the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 9 and got marked 12 documents and MOs.1 to 3. The learned trial Judge framed the following points for consideration:-
"8. 1) Whether the prosecution proves that on 31.12.2010 at 9.30 p.m., at Tavarekere, within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu accused 1 to 3 voluntarily assaulted and caused hurt to C.ws.1 to 3?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 caused grievous injury to C.w.3?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 intended to cause the murder of C.ws.1 to 4?
4) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 put threat to the lives of C.ws.1 to 4?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused 1 to 3 intentionally insulted C.w.1 to 4 filthily?"
7. While answering point Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court came to the conclusion that except one injury on the body of PW-7, all other injuries found on her body were simple. The injuries found on PWs-1 to 3 are all simple. It is observed that the very fact that they are all members of the same family and there was a history of ensuing enmity between the parties by itself is sufficient to presume that all of them had common intention to cause such bodily injury to PWs-1. 2, 3 and 7.
8. While answering point No.3, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the oral evidence read in between lines suggest that it turned to be a face to face fight and the accused over powered the situation. In the absence of legal evidence linking the weapons to the accused persons and in view of the discrepancy in the complaint and oral evidence, it is not possible to infer mens rea on the part of the accused persons to do away with the lives of the prosecution witnesses.
9. While answering point Nos.4 and 5, the Trial Court has observed that 'none of the witnesses have stated specifically as to who was that accused, who insulted the witnesses in the public or threatened them to do away with their lives. It is not possible to accept that all the accused persons together would pronounce the same words. Hence, in the absence of corroborative independent witnesses, the said points were answered in the negative.
10. The incident according to the prosecution took place on 31.12.2010 at 9.30 p.m. PW-1 is the first i
