The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to provide credible evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 427, 323, and 504 - Conviction and sentencing of appellant under Section 307 IPC for attempting to stab victim - Trial Court convicted appellant with 10 years imprisonment; acquitted on other charges due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence from the injured party. (Paras 10-15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant attempted to stab the victim, who sustained injuries while trying to defend himself. The incident involved damage to property and provocation by both accused. (Paras 5-6)

Findings of Court:
The trial Court’s conviction was based on inadequate evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof necessary for a conviction under Section 307 IPC. (Paras 8, 15)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the credibility of witness testimonies. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in the absence of credible evidence from the injured party and significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, the conviction could not be upheld. (Paras 15)

Result: Appeal allowed; the conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

JUDGEMENT

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2012 and 20.03.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore in SC No.779/2011.

2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record.

4. Charges were framed against accused No.1 for offences punishable under Section 307 and 427 IPC, against accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 IPC.

5. It is the case of prosecution that on 02.11.2010 at about

9.40 p.m., near Sridurga Condiments, Keshavanagara, Magadi Road, accused No.1 tried to stab on the abdomen of CW2-Praveen Shetty with a knife and when he tried to protect himself, sustained injury to his right little finger. Further, accused No.1 caused damage to the bottles kept in the shop by hitting with the stones and caused loss to the tune of Rs.600/- to CW1-Ashok Shetty, owner of the shop. It is the further case of prosecution that accused No.2 voluntarily caused hurt to CW2-Praveen Shetty by assaulting him with hands and both accused Nos.1 and 2 intentionally insulted him and gave provocation and thereby committed the charged offences.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 07 witnesses and got marked 10 documents and 04 material objects.

7. The complainant is examined as PW1.

Complaint is marked as Ex.P1. PWs.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P2-spot mahazar. PW4 is the scientific officer who issued the report marked as Ex.P4, regarding the blood stains found on the articles such as knife and piece of cloth. PW5 is a witness to Ex.P5, under which the knife was recovered from accused No.1. PW6 is the Doctor, who examined the injured-CW2 and issued the wound certificate-Ex.P6. PW7 is the PSI, who registered the case and conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.

8. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled against accused No.2, accordingly he has been acquitted. Insofar as the appellant/accused No.1 is concerned, the trial Court has relied on Ex.P1-complaint, evidence of PW1 and the medical evidence and came to the conclusion that he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

However, insofar as Section 427 and 504 r/w 34 IPC, the trial Court has found insufficient evidence against accused No.1 and therefore, he has been acquitted of the said charges.

9. In this case, the injured is one Praveen Shetty- CW2. For the reasons best known, the prosecution has not examined him. According to the prosecution, the injured was working in a Bakery belonging to PW1- complainant. On 02.11.2010, at about 9.40 p.m., both accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the Bakery. Accused No.1 purchased cigarette and cake, but refused to pay for it.

When CW2-Praveen Shetty demanded money, accused No.1 picked up quarrel with him and caused damage to the three bottles which were kept in the shop, hitting it with a stone. He removed a knife from his pant pocket and tried to stab him on his abdomen. While trying to avoid, CW2 sustained injuries to his right little finger. Then the accused threatened him and went away.

10. The prosecution has projected PW1 as an eyewitness to the incident. A perusal of his evidence goes to show that at the time of incident he was in his house which was situated about 20 feet away from the shop and he came to the spot on hearing the commotion. In his chief examination he has stated that the accused had caused damage to the glass, abused Praveen Shetty in filthy language and tried to stab him on his abdomen, however, in the cross-examination he has stated tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9189

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAMR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, JSRI RAJA @ CHAPPANI – AppellantVersusSTATE BY K P AGRAHARA P S – RespondentCRL.A 379/2012

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to provide credible evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J
SRI RAJA @ CHAPPANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY K P AGRAHARA P S – Respondent
CRL.A 379/2012