Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. K.Venkatareddy S/O. Narayanareddy

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020CRL.A/100045/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against acquittal. The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding the prosecution case unreliable due to significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony, discrepancies in medical reports, and unexplained delays. The court also noted the accused belong to the Scheduled Tribe category, negating charges under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

ACQUITTAL of the accused is maintained; criminal appeal is dismissed.

State of Karnataka Vs K.Venkatareddy S/O… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100045/2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HAMPI SUB-DIVISION, KAMALAPUR, REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL.S.P.P.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI K.VENKATAREDDY, S/O NARAYANAREDDY, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR.

¶13

KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY, S/O VENKATREDDY, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR.

¶14

BOTH ARE R/O H.P.C. KAMALAPUR.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND 3 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.08.2013 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI IN SPL.CASE NO.50/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 324, 504 R/W SECTION 34 OF I.P.C. AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT AND BE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS FOR AFORESAID OFFENCES.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Challenging the judgment dated 13.08.2013

¶21

passed by the Special Judge, Ballari in Special Case No.50/2012 whereby accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’, for short).

¶22

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that a complaint came to be filed by Sri P.Babu on

¶23

¶24

20.12.2011 at 4.30 p.m. with Kamalapur Police

¶25

Station, stating that on the said day at 7.30 a.m. when he was riding his scooter along with Ramesh on Kamalapur-HPC road, accused No.1 and 2 stopped them near Muttu Goudar’s house, abused him referring to his caste as “¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, ¸ÀtÚ eÁwAiÀÄªÀ”. Accused No.1 assaulted him with a stone on his head and near left ear, accused No.2 assaulted him with chopper on his left rib, inflicting grievous injuries. The complaint was registered as Crime No.69/2011 by Kamalapur Police Station.

¶26

Immediately thereafter, FIR was forwarded

¶27

to the Court of the jurisdictional Magistrate. The police after investigation filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. On appearance, accused denied the charges and sought trial. During trial, prosecution examined

¶28

¶29

twenty-three witnesses as PW1 to PW23 and marked Exhibits P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 3 were identified. On behalf of accused, eight documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D8 by way of confrontation to the witnesses.

¶30

Thereafter incriminating evidence was

¶31

explained to the accused which he denied. On considering the material, trial Court framed followings points for its consideration.

¶32

1. Whether the prosecution proves that, on the above said date, time and place, accused persons, picked up quarrel with CW1 and assaulted him with club and chopper and caused him simple and grievous hurt and thereby, both accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 323, 324, r/w Section 34 of IPC?

¶33

2. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said date, time and place, accused persons picked up quarrel with complainant and abused him in filthy language as “ªÀqÀØ ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ” with an intention to insult him knowing that, such insult would cause him to commit offence or to commit breach of peace in the public and thereby, both accused persons committed an offence

¶34

¶35

punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC?

¶36

3. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said date, time and place, accused persons picked up quarrel with CW1 and abused him as “ªÀqÀØ ¸ÀÆ¼ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ” by taking the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate or insult him in the public, knowing that, he belongs to scheduled caste and thereby, accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

¶37

4. What order?

¶38

After answering point Nos.1 to 3 in the

¶39

negative, it proceeded to pass the impugned judgment acquitting the accused of all the charges. Challenging acquittal, the State is in appeal.

¶40

Learned Addl.S.P.P. Sri V.M.Banakar appearing for the State submitted that complainant in his complaint has clearly mentioned about overtacts of accused, namely abuse of complainant referring to his caste, on a public road and also assault by accused No.1 on the head and near left

¶41

¶42

ear with stone and accused No.2 with chopper. In

¶43

order to substantiate the same, complainant is examined as PW7 wherein he has reiterated the complaint averments. His evidence is supported by evidence of PW8-Ramesh, who was accompanying him at the time of the incident. The prosecution also led evidence of the PW10-doctor, who examined complainant, immediately after incident, noted injuries and issued wound certificate marked as Ex.P13. Ex.P13 mentions that complainant came to hospital by himself and was examined at 10.00 a.m. on 20.12.2011. The following injuries were noted.

¶44

a. Abrasion 1cm X ½ cm left side of the head (red in colour);

¶45

b. Abrasion: multiple small abrasions on left foot (toes 1, 2 and 3) red in colour;

¶46

c. Tenderness over left side of abdomen.

¶47

The injuries were described as simple in

¶48

nature, caused by hard and blunt object. The age of

¶49

¶50

injuries was mentioned as about six hours. The Engineer who drew sketch of spot of incident was examined as PW11 and sketch marked as Ex.P15. The prosecution examined the PW13-Tahsildar who had issued caste certificate of complainant and got marked caste certificate Ex.P16. Likewise, another Tahsildar was examined as PW14, who issued caste certificate of accused marked as Ex.P17, based on a report-Ex.P21 given by Revenue Inspector-PW22. The Investigating Officers (IO) were also examined as PW20 and PW21.

¶51

It was submitted by learned Addl.S.P.P. that based on oral evidence of material witnesses namely PW7, PW8 and PW16-eyewitnesses and PW10Doctor, prosecution duly substantiated all the ingredients of offences alleged against the accused, but trial Court based on perverse appreciation of evidence passed the impugned judgment.

¶52

¶53

Assailing the reasons assigned by trial

¶54

Court, it was submitted that minor contradictions in

¶55

oral evidence of witnesses were not material and ought to have been ignored by trial Court. Especially so, when remaining evidence clearly establishes or aids the prosecution case. It was also submitted that when PW7 clearly stated about assault by accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused snatching his gold chain and gold kadaga, admission of PW8 that he had not given statement about chain and kadaga, at the time of recording his statement, would be a minor omission, if not a minor contradiction. Likewise, even PW16 is noted by trial Court to have given similar admission. The further reason assigned by trial Court is that none of independent witnesses supported the prosecution, but only relatives of complainant supported him, also cast doubt about prosecution case. It was submitted that mere relation with complainant does not affect admissibility of their

¶56

¶57

evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardev Singh V/s Harbhej Singh reported in AIR 1997 SC 1487 and State of Rajasthan V/s Smt.Kalki and another reported in AIR 1981 SC 1390.

¶58

It was further submitted that trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the spot of incident as pancha witnessesPW17 and PW18, did not support the prosecution with regard to spot mahazar-Ex.P8 and seizure panchanama-Ex.P9. The trial Court erroneously held that independent eyewitnesses-PW1 to 6 turning hostile and minor contradictions in evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW16 would render prosecution case doubtful and acquitted accused on that count. This led to miscarriage of justice and sought for setting aside judgment of acquittal and for convicting accused for offences charged against them.

¶59

¶60

On the other hand, learned counsel Sri

¶61

T.Hanumareddy for accused submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on evidence of PW7, who had ulterior motive and business rivalry with accused. PW7 admitted in his cross-examination that

¶62

for the year subsequent to date of incident, he had obtained HPC and floor bay tenders, which were earlier held by accused. It was further submitted that there were several material omissions and improvements sought to be made to prosecution case by witnesses which clearly cast grave doubt about prosecution case. Though PW7, PW8 and PW16 consistently stated about assault with chopper on left rib, there is no corresponding injury noted by doctorPW10 mentioned in wound certificate-Ex.P13. It was further urged that there is no explanation by Investigating Officers for conducting spot mahazar on 21.12.2011, and seizure panchanama only on 23.12.2011. Even there are grave inconsistencies

¶63

¶64

with regard to MOs. While PW7 states that he had fainted after the assault, but during his examination before Court, he states that he had taken MOs-1 to 3 along with him when he left the spot to go to hospital. There is no corroboration by any other witness to these assertions. On the other hand, PW8 during his examination in Court says that MO-1 was thrown in a nearby field, MO-2 was lying at the spot of incident. This is further contradicted in the oral evidence of PW16 who stated that all the MOs were lying at the spot of the incident. It was further contended that as per caste certificate-Ex.D3, even accused belong to scheduled tribes. If accused belong to schedule tribe, Section 3 of SC/ST Act would not be attracted and acquittal of accused would in any case be justified.

¶65

I have heard learned counsel, perused the impugned judgment and record.

¶66

¶67

From the above, it is admitted that

¶68

complainant and accused were contractors and business rivals. It is also admitted that all eyewitnesses who have supported prosecution case are either relatives of the complainant or working for him.

¶69

PW1 to PW6 were independent eyewitnesses examined by prosecution. They were passers by. However, they have not supported case of prosecution. PW7 is injured eyewitness and the victim-complainant. In the complaint, he stated that when he was riding his scooter on HPC-Kamalapur road, along with Ramesh-PW8, accused stopped him near Muttu Goudar’s house, abused him referring to his caste and thereafter accused No.1 assaulted him on his head and right ear with a stone. Though he states that he was also assaulted with chopper, he did not state who assaulted him with it. But at time

¶70

¶71

of recording his evidence, he sought to improvise and implicate accused No.2 as having assaulted with chopper. Interestingly PW7 denies PW8 is his relative and claims him to be his friend. He denies that PW8 was a journalist. However, he admits that the floor bay contract was taken by accused No.1 and during 2012, he had got the tender for filter house and floor bay. He categorically stated that he gave MOs to the police, the next day after he filed complaint and also that he had taken MOs from the spot and gave them to police himself.

¶72

However, evidence of PW7 is riddled with several contradictions. Contrary to denial of PW7, PW8 admits that he is relative of PW7 and he is a journalist. Further, with regard to assault with chopper, there is no corresponding injury in wound certificate-Ex.P13 or spoken about by doctor-PW10. Further, there is admitted business rivalry between

¶73

¶74

complainant and accused. It is also admitted that few of the tenders which were with accused at time of incident, were obtained by complainant, after date of incident. Interestingly, there is no charge framed with regard to theft of gold chain and kadaga of complainant. None of these contradictions are explained by the I.O., which lead to doubt about prosecution case.

¶75

PW8 in his evidence admitted he is related to complainant and he has stated that he had gone to complainant’s house to attend pooja and stayed at complainant’s house and he accompanied complainant the next day morning when they were going to Galemma Temple. The said witness however denies having given statement before the police stating that on 20.12.2011, he was working at HPC, when complainant met him at 6.30 a.m. and took him to go to Galemma Temple.

¶76

¶77

PW8 specifically states that accused threw chopper-MO1 in a field and that stone-MO2 was lying at the spot. There is a categorical admission that neither himself nor PW7 took MOs-1 and 2 from the spot on the date of incident. Thus, there is serious contradiction between the version of PW7 and PW8 regarding the MOs, which is not at all explained by prosecution.

¶78

PW9 is the Police Constable who carried the

¶79

FIR to the Court of the Magistrate. There is no delay in the same.

¶80

PW10 is the Doctor who examined PW7 on the date of incident. PW10 has noted injuries on the toes of complainant, which were not at all stated by complainant either in complaint or at time of examination before Court. This is a glaring omission. PW10 has further stated that immediately after examining complainant at 10.00 a.m., he has sent

¶81

¶82

medico legal case (MLC) intimation to police.

¶83

However, PW10 neither produced any records to indicate same nor is there any explanation by prosecution for this omission. It is relevant to note here that the incident allegedly occurred at 7.30 a.m., complainant was examined by doctor at 10.00 a.m. on same day, all injuries noted were simple in nature, but complaint is registered at 4.30 p.m. without any proper explanation for delay, which is also a material omission on the part of prosecution.

¶84

PW11 is the engineer who prepared sketch of the spot as per Ex.P15.

¶85

PW12 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who registered complaint as an FIR. PW13 is Tahsildar

¶86

who has issued caste certificate of complainant based on report-Ex.P16 given by Revenue Inspector-PW22. PW14 is the Tahsildar, who has spoken about caste certificate of accused as belonging to Reddy

¶87

¶88

community. He has stated that based on report given by Revenue Inspector, the then Grade-II Tahsildar by name Shivarangappa issued caste certificate of accused Ex.P17. However, said witness admits Ex.D3 as caste certificate issued by Tahsildar’s office and that as per Ex.D3, accused belong to Kapu community classified as Scheduled Tribe . The admission that accused belonged to Kapu community classified as scheduled tribe, clearly takes away the prosecution case out of purview of Section 3 of SC/ST Act, leaving an examination of the case only with regard to the offences under Section 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶89

PW15 an independent eyewitness has not supported prosecution case. However, PW16 is another independent eyewitness who has supported prosecution case. During his evidence, he denied working for complainant. His statements given before

¶90

¶91

police as per Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were marked in

¶92

confrontation to witness as Ex.D6 and D7. He however denies suggestion that in Ex.D6 and D7, he has stated that he works for complainant. But admits that he stated before police that accused NO.1 Venkatareddy assaulted complainant with chopper while accused No.2 Krishna Mohan Reddy assaulted complainant with stone on his head. These admissions are in material contradiction with prosecution case which is that accused No.1 assaulted complainant with stone on his head and it was accused No.2 who assaulted with chopper. These material contradictions cast serious doubt about prosecution case.

¶93

Thus, prosecution has based its case on evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW16 as eyewitnesses and evidence of PW10-Doctor, PW13 and 14-Tahsildars, which as observed hereinabove, suffers from material

¶94

¶95

contradiction and omissions. Under the above

¶96

circumstances, the impugned judgment of trial Court acquitting accused of all offences appears justified. Existence of business rivalry between complainant and accused is one of the circumstances which justifies extension of benefit of doubt to accused. Delay in filing complaint and failure to explain it is yet another circumstance which goes against prosecution. None of the reasons assigned by trial Court are perverse or contrary to evidence on record. They are with reference to evidence on record and conclusions drawn are based on the same. They are neither perverse nor suffer from any material irregularity, calling for interference by this Court.

¶97

In the result, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶98

SD/JUDGE

¶99

CLK

State of Karnataka v. K.Venkatareddy S/O. Narayanareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. K.Venkatareddy S/O. Narayanareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan S/O Badiya Naik Vs Venkatraman S/O Krishna Achari

Babu S/O. Irappa Shirali Vs Narayan S/O. Nagappa Naik

The State Vs K Hanumesh Shetty

M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co. Vs Nijagunappa Ningappa Hadimani

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Vs Shivangouda S/O Shankargouda Patil

Nagappa S/O Basappa Karavinakoppa, Vs Tukaram Narayan Gouda