Allowed

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020CRL.A/2551/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence under IPC sections for attempted murder and assault on a woman. The High Court found significant discrepancies in prosecution evidence regarding witness timelines, medical records, and incident details. The Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled and fines refunded.

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.A. NO.2551 OF 2012

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI BASAPPA KAREPPA CHANDARGI AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O MUGALIHAL, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELGAUM.

¶8

SHRI VITHAL BASAPPA KARADAGI AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O BAIRANATTI, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELGAUM.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MURAGOUD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶15

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 11.01.2012 IN SESSION CASE NO.70/2011 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 452, 342, 307, 354 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging their conviction and sentence passed in SC No.70/2011 on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, wherein they are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 342, 307, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the material on record.

¶21

Brief facts: the complainant PW1-Smt. Jayashree is a resident of Mugalihal village. PW7-Govindappa is her husband. PW8-Smt. Venkavva is her mother-in-law. The complainant was residing with her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and her son by name Abhishek. Her son Ningappa was staying in Sattigeri village in

¶22

¶23

her parental home. On 28.6.2010, while she was washing clothes in a stream, accused No.1 approached her and asked for sexual favour. She refused and reprimanded him. Accused No.1 went away by threatening her not to inform the matter to her husband. Again, on the next day i.e., 29.6.2010 at about 12.30 p.m., while she was proceeding towards the flour mill, accused No.1 stopped her and asked her willingness and called her seeking sexual favour, but without expressing anything, she went to the flour mill. On the next day, she informed the matter to her husband and mother-in-law. They told her that they will enquire about the same with the accused. On 3.7.2010 at about 3 p.m., when PW1 was alone in her house, accused No.1 and 2 trespassed into her house and locked the door from inside. Accused No.1 closed her mouth and thrust a cloth tightly into her mouth. Accused No.2 twisted her hands and dragged her towards a pole and tied her both

¶24

¶25

hands to the pole by means of a saree. Accused No.1 by saying so as to why she informed the matter to her husband, began to squeeze her neck with an intention to commit her murder. PW1 somehow managed to spit the cloth from her mouth and made a hue and cry. Both the accused ran away from the house by opening the door. In a short while, her husband Govindappa came to the house and asked her as to why accused No.1 Basappa and Accused No.2-Vittal ran away from the house. She disclosed the entire incident to him. Immediately, she was taken to a clinic of Dr. Masurkar at Gokak, but he did not entertain them as it was a Medico-Legal case. Therefore, she was taken to Govt. Hospital, Yaragatti. On receiving the intimation, PW3-Police Constable went to the hospital and recorded her statement. Based on her statement, a case was registered against both the accused at Muragod P.S. in Crime No.196/2010. Investigation was taken over by

¶26

¶27

PW10. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.

¶28

The trial Court framed charges against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 342, 354, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶29

In order to establish its case, prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs 1 and 2. The defence of the accused was one of total denial.

¶30

The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and material on record convicted both the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶31

Assailing the impugned judgment passed

¶32

by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the entire case of

¶33

¶34

the prosecution is false. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The accused are falsely implicated at the behest of PW7husband of PW1, as there was enmity between them. There is also discrepancy with regard to seizure of Saree from the spot. He submits that PW7 and PW8 are not the eye-witnesses. The evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by other materials on record. He contends that PW1 did not sustain any injury and when she went to the hospital, she has complained to the doctor that she is suffering from fever and therefore entire case of the prosecution is false and concocted.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the trial Court without considering the material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1, 7 and 8 has

¶36

¶37

erroneously convicted the accused for the charged offences without assigning any justifiable reasons. He submits that the interested testimonies of PW1, 7 and 8 are not sufficient to hold the guilt of the accused. PW7 as well as PW11-Investigating Officer have admitted that a case was registered against PW7-husband of PW1, wherein accused No.1 is the complainant. He submits that in view of the enmity between them, accused have been falsely implicated. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶38

Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that Victim-PW1 has categorically stated in her evidence that accused No.1 and 2 trespassed into her house; accused No.2 tied her to a pole with the help of saree and accused No.1 squeezed her neck with an intention to commit her murder. PW1 has stated about the previous incident and she has corroborated the complaint

¶39

¶40

averments. PW7-husband of PW1 has seen both the accused running away from his house. She contends that appreciating the evidence of PW1, 7, 8 and PW4-doctor as well as Ex.P3-wound certificate, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the charged offences. Accordingly, she sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

PW1 is the victim/complainant. She has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. PW2 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar under which, MO1-Saree and MO2-handkerchief are seized. PW3 is the Police Constable, who went to Yaragatti Govt. Hospital along with PSI and recorded the statement of PW1. PW4 is the medical officer at Yaragatti Govt. Hospital. He has issued Wound Certificate as per Ex.P3 in respect of PW1. PW5 and 6 are the neighbours of PW1. They have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. PW7 is the husband of PW1. PW8 is

¶42

¶43

the mother-in-law of PW1. PW9 is the Station House Officer, who received the complaint as per Ex.P1 and registered the case against the accused in Crime No.196/2010 and forwarded the FIREx.P6 to the jurisdictional Court. PW10 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. PW11-ASI speaks about the arrest of accused No.1 and 2.

¶44

It is the specific case of prosecution that, on 28.6.2010, when PW1 was washing clothes, accused No.1 approached her and asked for sexual favour, for which she refused and reprimanded him. On 29.6.2010 at around 12.30 p.m., once again accused No.1 stopped PW1 while she was proceeding towards the flour mill and asked her for sexual favour. It is stated that accused No.1 threatened PW1 not to disclose the matter to her husband. However, on the next date, she informed the matter to her husband and

¶45

¶46

mother-in-law. In this background, accused No.1 and 2 went to her house on 3.7.2010 at about 3 p.m. and locked the door from inside. Accused No.2 tied her with a saree to the pole and accused No.1 attempted to kill her by pressing her neck. When PW1 raised hue and cry, both the accused ran away from the spot.

¶47

In the complaint marked as Ex.P1, PW1 has stated that when she raised hue and cry, both the accused ran away from her house. Thereafter, her husband came and enquired as to why the accused ran out of the house and then, she disclosed the incident to him. It is stated that she was taken to the clinic of one Dr. Masurkar at Gokak and from there she was taken to Govt. Hospital in Yaragatti.

¶48

PW1 in her evidence has stated that after the accused ran away from the house, her husband and CW4-Savita (PW5) came to the house

¶49

¶50

and enquired about the matter. Thereafter, her mother-in-law PW8 and CW6(PW6) also came to the house. She has stated that her husband brought a Tata Sumo vehicle and took her to a clinic of one Dr. Masurkar at Gokak. Since the said doctor did not entertain them, she was taken to Yaragatti Govt. Hospital, wherein she was admitted for treatment. At about 1.00 a.m., police came to the hospital and she gave a complaint written by her husband.

¶51

In Ex.P1-Complaint, it is not stated that immediately after the incident, her mother-in-law (PW8) as well as PWs. 5 and 6 came to the spot. According to the prosecution, PWs.5 and 6 are the neighbours, who after hearing the hue and cry of PW1 came to her house and saw the victim (PW1) tied to a pole using a saree. On enquiry, she informed the matter to them. PW5 and PW6-the

¶52

¶53

independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution.

¶54

PW1 in her evidence has stated that PW5 and PW7 came and saw her tied to a pole with a saree and they untied her. She disclosed the incident to them. She has clearly stated that her mother-in-law(PW8) and PW6 came thereafter. However, PW8 has stated that when she came to the house, PW1 was tied to a pole with a saree. The said evidence of PW8 is contrary to the evidence of PW1. When PW1 has clearly stated that after she was untied, PW8 came to the house, then the evidence of PW8 that when she came to the house, PW1 was seen tied to a pole is unacceptable.

¶55

PW7 in his evidence has stated that when he went to the house, he saw PW1 tied to a pole using a saree. On enquiry, she narrated the incident to him. PW7 has not stated that his

¶56

¶57

mother PW8 also came to the house and on enquiry, PW1 disclosed the incident to her motherin-law. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1, 7 and 8 are not consistent with each other.

¶58

PW1 has stated that when she was in the hospital, police came and received the complaint written by her husband. According to the prosecution, on 04.07.2010 at around 1 a.m. in the mid night, PW3 along with PSI went to Yaragatti Govt. Hospital and received the complaint of PW1. PW9 has stated that while he was the SHO, he received the complaint sent by Muragod ASI and he registered the case against the accused persons. However, contrary to the same, PW7 in his cross-examination has stated that he gave the complaint at Muragod Police Station at about 3.00 a.m. and at the time of lodging the complaint, his wife (PW1) and himself were in the police station.

¶59

¶60

It is elicited in the cross-examination of

¶61

PW1 that Yaragatti is at a distance of 20 kms from his village and Gokak is at a distance of 30 kms. PW7 has stated in his cross-examination that Yaragatti is about 14 kms and Gokak is 31 kms from his village. When Yaragatti is situated closure to Mugalihal village, where there is a Government Hospital, it is incomprehensible as to why PW1 was initially taken to Gokak for treatment. There was no reason for PW7 to take PW1 to Gokak, which is situated farther than Yaragatti where there is a Government Hospital.

¶62

PW4 is the Medical Officer at Yaragatti Govt. Hospital. He has stated on 03.07.2010 at about 10.45 p.m., PW1 was brought to the hospital by her relatives with a history of assault. He has stated that he did not notice any injury on PW1, but she complained that she is suffering from fever. In the wound certificate marked as

¶63

¶64

Ex.P3, it is stated that there are no signs of external injuries. It is no doubt true that injury or hurt is not a sine-qua-non or essential condition to prove an offence of attempt to murder. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from surrounding circumstances. In the instant case, PW1 is the material witness. Her evidence alone may be sufficient to establish any of the offence committed by the accused. However, it is required to examine as to whether the evidence of PW1 is acceptable and whether it inspires the confidence of the Court.

¶65

PW4 has not stated that PW1 was admitted in the hospital. However, according to PW1, she was admitted in the hospital and on the next day at about 1.00 p.m. she was discharged. Except the wound certificate, there are no other medical records showing the admission of PW1 or her discharge from the hospital. According to

¶66

¶67

PW7, from Yaragatti Hospital he went to Muragod police station to lodge the complaint and thereafter once again he went to the hospital. He has stated that when he was in the hospital, the police had come to the hospital. However, PW1 has stated that till her discharge, her husband was accompanying her in the hospital.

¶68

It is pertinent to see that spot mahazarEx.P2 was conducted on 04.07.2010 between 7 to 8.30 am. PW10-Investigating Officer has stated that on 04.07.2010, he visited the house of the complainant and prepared the spot mahazar. In Ex.P2, PW7 has put his signature. It is mentioned in Ex.P2 that PW7 showed the spot. As per the evidence of PW1, her husband PW7 was with her throughout in the hospital till 1 p.m. on 04.07.2010. If that is so, then it is difficult to accept that PW7 showed the spot to the Investigating Officer.

¶69

¶70

PW2 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar–Ex.P2. According to him, one yellow colour saree (M.O.1) and a hand kerchief (M.O.2) were seized from the spot. However, according to the I.O., a green colour saree was seized from the spot. PW8 in her evidence has stated that bangles worn by PW1 were broken and scattered all over. But the bangle pieces are not seized. In Ex.P2, there is no mention of any broken bangles at the spot.

¶71

According to PW7, he saw both the accused Nos.1 and 2 running away from his house. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not tried to catch hold the accused persons. Even after he came to know about the incident from PW1, he has not gone to the police station and lodged the complaint. It is not forthcoming as to what was the motive for accused No.2 to commit the offence along with accused

¶72

¶73

No.1. Admittedly, PW1 did not sustain any injury and it is not the case of prosecution that she had complained of any uneasiness or pain. It is relevant to see that she complained to the doctor at Yaragatti Govt. Hospital that she is suffering from fever. The same gives rise to a doubt about the occurrence as put-forth by the prosecution.

¶74

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there was some enmity between accused No.1 and PW7. It is elicited from PW7 and the Investigating Officer – PW10 that a case was registered against PW7 on the complaint lodged by accused No.1. The learned HCGP contends that the said case is registered after registration of the present case against the accused persons. Hence, it cannot be said that prior to registration of this case, there was a case registered against PW7 on the complaint lodged by accused No.1. However, when the prosecution

¶75

¶76

alleges that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the charged offences, said charges have to be proved against them beyond reasonable doubt.

¶77

In the instance case, the prosecution has projected PWs 5 and 6 as independent witnesses. Both the said witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of PWs.1, 7 and 8 are not free from doubt. There are material discrepancies in their evidence regarding lodging of the complaint, taking treatment in the hospital and conducting spot mahazar etc. Except the evidence of PW1, there is no other evidence to show that on an earlier occasion, accused No.1 had approached her asking for sexual favour and threatened her not to disclose the incident to her husband.

¶78

In the above circumstances and for the discussions made supra, it cannot be said that the

¶79

¶80

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has failed to notice the above infirmities in the prosecution case and the contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charges leveled against the accused is not in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

I. Appeal is allowed.

¶83

II. The impugned judgment dated 11.01.2012 passed in S.C.No.70/2011 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi is hereby set-aside.

¶84

III. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences charged against them.

¶85

IV. Their bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled.

¶86

¶87

V. Fine amount if any deposited, shall be refunded to the accused .

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

JTR/LAD

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Devawwa W/O Late Komareppa Lingadalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pooja W/O Raju Talukar Vs the State of Karnataka