IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1046 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIRISAVE POLICE STATION CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU – 01 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI P.M.NAWAZ, SPP) AND:
1. K.P. PUTTARAJU S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. RAMAKRISHNA K.P.
S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. RAMASWAMYGOWDA @ PATTABHI S/O BHEEMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4. K.P.KUMARASWAMY S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5. K.P.MANJEGOWDA S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6. AJITH S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 7. ANNEGOWDA S/O ANNASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 8. ASHWATH S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 9. TRIMURTHY S/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 10. SWAMY @ RAJANIKANTH S/O KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KAMANAGHATTA VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 571 501. ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF Cr.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.08.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, IN S.C.NO.206 OF 2012, ACQUITTING RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7 OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 307 OF IPC AND ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 10 OF THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC, ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH I.A.1 OF 2017 THIS DAY, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondents – accused Nos.1 to 7 of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and acquittal of respondents – accused Nos.8 to 10 of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 114 read with s.149 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution, the accused persons as well as six injured persons namely, PW Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were residents of M. Kamanaghatta Village, Hirisave Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. There was a property dispute between the accused and PW Nos.1 to 7. With this motive, on 08.11.2011 at 10.15 p.m., while PWs 1 to 7 were returning to their village, accused persons are stated to have restrained and assaulted them with clubs and a chopper.
3. After trial, learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.8 to 10 of all the charges on the ground that presence of these accused persons at the scene of occurrence was not established. Whereas, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured in the alleged incident, the Trial Court found it proper to convict accused Nos. 1 to 7 under Sections 324 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC.
4. Learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the intention to murder could be gathered from the nature of the weapons used by the accused. In the instant case, a chopper used for the commission of offences has been seized from the spot. The injuries suffered by the witnesses as certified by the Medical Officer indicate that witnesses were assaulted on the forehead and other vital parts as noted in the wound certificate/s. Those circumstances clearly make out that there was a deliberate attempt to murder the witnesses. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Court below acquitting accused Nos. 8 to 10 of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC and further acquitting accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the offence under Section 307 of IPC calls for interference.
5. We have gone through the impugned Judgment and the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court. We find from the records that the Trial Court has taken into consideration the oral testimony of the injured witnesses who were examined as PWs 1 to 6 and also the testimony of three other eye witnesses with regard to manner of the incident. The Trial Court has considered the injuries sustained by each of the witnesses in para 12 of the impugned Judgment. On going through the said material, we find that all the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses were simple in nature. Merely because one of the weapons used by the accused was a chopper, in the absence of any other material to show that in the alleged incident any of the witnesses had suffered grievous injury on vital parts of the body, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding the accused Nos.1 to 7 guilty of the offence only under S.324 of IPC.
Moreover, none of the witnesses have stated in their evidences that with an intent to cause their murder, the alleged assault was made by the accused. The doctor who has been examined as PW-11 has nowhere stated that the injuries sustained by the victims are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. That apart, the prosecution has not produced any corroborating evidence to show that on account of the injuries sustained by the witnesses, they were treated as in-patient in the hospital for a considerable length of time.
6. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC is proper. It based on the legal evidence produced by the prosecution. We do not find any error either in the appreciation of evidence or in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The material produced by the prosecution in our opinion is not sufficient to make out an offence under S.307 of IPC. Therefore the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 7 under Sec.307 IPC is well justified and does not call for interference by this Court. Likewise, we do not find any material whatsoever to show the involvement of accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 in the alleged incident or with regard to the overt acts committed by them. Therefore, the acquittal of these accused also does not call for interference. We do not find any ground to admit the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is rejected at the admission stage itself.
In view of rejection of the appeal, I.A.1 of 2017 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sac*