Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Chandrashekhar C.

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2021CRL.A/100160/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging an order of acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the High Court re-appreciated evidence regarding an alleged caste-based assault. Finding the medical evidence untrustworthy due to overwriting and witnesses unreliable due to civil disputes and enmity with the accused, the Court upheld the trial Court's acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge is confirmed.

State of Karnataka Vs Chandrashekhar C. — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100160/2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE

¶10

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL SUB DIVISION,

¶11

BALLARI,

¶12

THROUGH THE ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH. ... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

CHANDRASHEKHAR C. S/O. VENKATESH C AGE 45 YEARS, OCC FARMER

¶16

LAKSHMINARAYANA C S/O. VENKATESH AGE:71 YEARS, OCC:FARMER

¶17

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶18

¶19

VENKATARAMUDU C S/O. VENKATAIAH C AGE:71 YEARS, OCC:FARMER

¶20

VINAYKUMAR C S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGE:29 YEARS,

¶21

OCC:FARMER

¶22

SANDEEP S/O. VENKATARAMUDU AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:FARMER

¶23

NARESH C S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR C AGE:24 YEARS, OCC:FARMER

¶24

ALL ARE R/O. NELLUDI KOTTAL VILLAGE BALLARI TALUK and DISTRICT

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.J.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, SRI A.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 03.01.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 149 OF 2014 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 355 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 (1)(X) OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989.

¶28

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.12.2021 AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

¶29

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶30

¶31

FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The State is before this Court aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ballari, dated 03.01.2017 in Special Case No.149/2014.

¶34

The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2014 at about 7.30 a.m. when CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar were doing coolie work in the land of CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy bearing Sy.No.69/D, in an area measuring 50 cents situated at Shankar Singh Camp within the limits of Kurugodu police station.

¶35

Accused No.1-Chandrashekar to accused No.7Sridhar formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, came to the said land, abused CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

¶36

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶37

¶38

Naveen Kumar using their caste and asked them to stop the work being done by them and get out of the land. CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar refused to do so stating that they had been doing coolie work in the said land for the last 10 years and asked the accused to contact the owner of the land being their employer namely CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy.

¶39

Accused 1 to 7 are stated to have abused CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8Naveen Kumar using their caste and assaulted CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna over his head with an axe and caused simple injuries to him and accused No.2-Lakshminarayana assaulted the complainant with his left leg’s chappal(footwear) over his face and accused No.5-Sandeep and accused No.6-Naresh assaulted the complainant over his back with their hands and accused No.7-

¶40

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶41

¶42

Sridhar assaulted with his right leg’s chappal. All the time the accused abused CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar and gave a life threat to them. At this time, CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

¶43

Naveen Kumar are alleged to have fallen on the feet of the accused despite which they continued to assault CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar and left the spot.

¶44

It is on this basis that on 03.08.2014 at 6.30 p.m., the complainant came to the police station and lodged the complaint on which basis Kurugodu police registered Cr.No.213/2014, carried out an investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 504 and 506 read

¶45

with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X)

¶46

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶47

¶48

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶49

On the charge sheet being filed, summons were issued to the accused who entered appearance along with anticipatory bail order. Hence, they were released on bail, copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to them, they were heard before the charge and charges were framed for offences under the aforesaid provisions, explained in Kannada language known to them, the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶50

The prosecution in order to prove its case, led the evidence of 10 witnesses as PWs-1 to 10, got marked 8 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and got marked two material objects as M.Os.1 and 2.

¶51

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶52

¶53

On the evidence being completed, the incriminating evidence against the accused was put across to them, their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied the evidence against them. Though they did not lead evidence, they produced certain documents. However, they were not marked in evidence.

¶54

The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the accused and the prosecution acquitted the accused of the offences on the ground of benefit of doubt. It is aggrieved by the same that the State is in appeal before this Court.

¶55

Shri Banakar, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor submits that

¶56

10.1. CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar,

¶57

CW.6/PW.4-

¶58

Krishnaiah and CW-4/PW.5-Chinna

¶59

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶60

¶61

Rangaswamy are eye-witnesses to the crime. All of them have categorically stated that the accused have abused CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar using their caste and having assaulted them, CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna who is the complainant and injured witness has specifically deposed about the overt acts committed by each of the accused which is supported by the eye-witnesses CW.5/PW.3Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah and CW4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy and corroborated by the evidence of CW.12/PW.10-Dr.Rangaswamy, the Medical Officer who treated the injured person, the said deposition has not been looked into properly and has not been considered by the trial Court resulting in miscarriage of justice.

¶62

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶63

¶64

10.2. The evidence of other witnesses including

¶65

eye-witnesses has not been appreciated by the trial Court in its proper manner, all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has misdirected itself and acted perversely by taking into consideration the aspects which were not required to be so taken into consideration resulting in the acquittal.

¶66

10.3. The evidence on record establishes the offence having been committed which require the trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a proper manner and convict the accused.

¶67

10.4. He refers to and relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶68

BALESHWAR MAHTO AND ANOTHER VS.

¶69

STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2017) 3 SCC

¶70

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶71

¶72

152 , more particularly, paragraphs 9, 10 and

¶73

11 thereof which are reproduced hereunder

¶74

for easy reference :

¶75

“9. Regarding the argument of the counsel for the appellants that there is contradiction between the oral evidence and the medical records, we do not find any such inconsistency as alleged by the defence. Insofar as injury inflicted on the deceased Lala Mahto is concerned, no doubt PW-2 (Dr. C.P. Sinha) has stated that it seemed to have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. However, at the same time it is pointed out that injury in nature was one incised weapon 4 ½ x1”x scalp bone deep on the right side of head injuring the right parietal lobe of brain laceration of this cortex cells resulting to unconsciousness and paralysis of the left side of the body. It is significant to mention that he has further categorically stated that in his opinion such an injury could have been caused by rifle shot as well. Likewise, in the postmortem report also, it is stated that injury was ante-mortem which was incised wound of the same measurement and description as given in report of PW-2. This postmortem report further discloses that on dissection, it was found that skull was cut and fractured corresponding to the level of the injury and brain was lacerated by pieces of bone.

¶76

10. Likewise, insofar as injuries which were found on the person of Bindeshwar Prasad, brother of PW-7 description thereof is as under:

¶77

“(i) One lacerated wound 1”x1”/4x1”/4 on the head internally.

¶78

(ii) Three lacerated wound of various sizes-

¶79

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶80

¶81

sizes ranging 2 ½” x ¼ “x ¼” to 1”x ¼” x ¼” on the back.”

¶82

No doubt, it is mentioned that the aforesaid injuries were simple in nature. However, the learned counsel for the appellants conveniently omitted to mention about the injuries inflicted upon PW-7 which according to PW-2 were as under:

¶83

“1. Multiple Pea sized gunshot wound (pellets) on the left scapular region of the back. 'All were superficial.'

¶84

2. One Pea sized pellet wound on the left side of head posteriorly. It was also superficial.”

¶85

These injuries are sufficient to rope in A-2 for offences under Section 307 IPC.

¶86

11. When we examine the matter in the aforesaid perspective we do not find any inconsistency between ocular evidence and the medical evidence. How medical evidence is to be collated with ocular evidence, is described by this Court in Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab in the following fashion: (SCC p.159, para 8)

¶87

“8. It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the latter. Unless medical evidence in its term goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner stated by the eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out. (See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 2 SCC 174]. The position was illuminatingly and exhaustively reiterated in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal [(1988) 4 SCC 302]. When the acquittal by the trial court was found to be on the basis of unwarranted assumptions and manifestly erroneous appreciation of evidence by ignoring valuable and credible evidence resulting in serious and substantial

¶88

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶89

¶90

miscarriage of justice, the High Court cannot in this case be found fault with for its well-merited interference.”

¶91

10.5. On the basis of the above he submits that the

¶92

judgement of the trial court is required to be reversed and the accused convicted of the offences that they were charged.

¶93

Shri J.Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused would submit that

¶94

11.1. There were disputes between the employer of

¶95

the complainant namely C W-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy and the accused as regards the subject lands. There are several inter-se complaints which have been filed between the accused and the employer of the complainant namely C W-4/PW.5-Chinna

Rangaswamy.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

11.2. Cases had been filed against C W-4/PW.5-

¶100

Chinna Rangaswam y, CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni and C W.8/PW.8-

¶101

Naveen Kumar with a strong motive to implicate the accused so as to make them to

¶102

come to terms with the demands of the employer of the complainant namely C W- 4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy.

¶103

11.3. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P.8 would

¶104

indicate that there is an overwriting on the said certificate. Despite the overwriting, the doctor has opined that the injuries are simple

¶105

in nature. If that be so, no offence as aforesaid under which the accused have been charged are made out.

¶106

11.4. CW.12/PW.10-Dr.Rangaswamy , the doctor in

¶107

his cross-examination also admitted about

¶108

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶109

¶110

the overwriting and the simple nature of the injuries.

¶111

11.5. The caste of the complainant is not material inasmuch as even according to the complainant, the dispute is as relating to the land and there is no dispute between the accused and the complainant.

¶112

11.6. Even according to the complaint, a false case has been filed to implicate the accused on account of the dispute with the employer of the complainant namely C W-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy and the accused.

¶113

11.7. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and

¶114

there is no independent witness. Even these witnesses have admitted the existence of dispute between the accused and the employer of the complainant namely C W-

¶115

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶116

¶117

4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswam y which has been properly appreciated by the trial Court and the benefit of doubt has been extended to the accused by dismissing the proceedings filed.

¶118

11.8. He submits that merely because the complainant belongs to the Schedule Caste community no offices under the special Act can be said to be made out and in this regard he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAMDAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170, more particularly, paragraph 11 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶119

“11. At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a scheduled caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to

¶120

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶121

¶122

the Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that the prosecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste community. The conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside.

¶123

11.9. He submits that once an order of acquittal has been passed, the appellate court should not interfere with the said order of acquittal merely because another view is possible, in this regard he relies upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KRISHNEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98, more particularly, paragraph 10 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶124

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶125

¶126

“10. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the State of Karnataka carried the matter to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court being conscious of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal observed that, appellate Court should not interfere with the order of the acquittal, if the view taken by the Trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse proceedings. The High Court went ahead to scrutinize the legality or otherwise of the order of acquittal.”

¶127

11.10. Relying upon the above he submits that the judgment of the trial Court being proper and correct, there is nothing that requires this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record. Even if the evidence on record is reappreciated, the finding of the trial Court would have to be confirmed.

¶128

It is in the above background that we have to consider whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and if the judgment passed by

¶129

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶130

¶131

the trial Court is proper or not. For this purpose, we would be required to re-appreciate the evidence on record in relation to the above aspects.

¶132

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippann a has stated that when he was in the land of his employer C W- 4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswam y, there was a quarrel which took place around 7:30 a.m. and the accused came and asked him to get out of the land. When he informed them that they were doing coolie work in the land for the last 10 years

¶133

and the accused would have to speak to their

¶134

employer namely C W-4/PW.5-Chinna

¶135

Rangaswamy , accused No.1-Chandrashekar

¶136

assaulted him with an axe over his head due to

¶137

which he sustained bleeding injuries. Accused

¶138

No.2-Lakshminarayana assaulted him with his

¶139

chappal on his back and the remaining accused

¶140

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶141

¶142

pulled him to the road. He has stated that he was taken to VIMS Hospital for treatment and thereafter, he came to Kurugodu Police Station and filed a complaint. He has stated that except for the above, he has not stated anything else to the police. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor requested the Court to treat him as hostile witness and cross-examined CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna . The Public Prosecutor cross-examined him. During the cross-examination, he has confirmed his statement and admitted all the suggestions put across which is the basis of the complaint filed, thereby supporting the case of the prosecution.

¶143

During the course of cross-examination by the accused counsel, he has admitted that he does not know anything about the civil dispute in respect of the land between C W-4/PW.5-Chinna

¶144

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶145

¶146

Rangaswamy, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4Krishnaia h and CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa and the accused. He has admitted that he was brought in a private car to Kurugodu Hospital and thereafter taken to Ballari VIMS Hospital. Thus, contradicting his statement in evidence that he was brought in an ambulance. Though in the examination-in-chief he has stated that he himself has written the complaint, in his cross-examination he has admitted that one CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa had written the complaint.

¶147

CW.2/PW.2- Riyazuddi n is the witness to the seizure panchnama at Ex.P.2 who has identified the seizure of one axe and two chappals lying on the scene of occurrence. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that there were civil disputes pending between the accused and PWs-3, 4 and 6 in respect of the landed properties.

¶148

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶149

¶150

CW.5/PW.3-Prabhaka r is the eyewitness who

¶151

states that he had seen the quarrel between the accused and C W.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kuma r on 03.08.2014 in the land of Rangaswamy. He has reiterated what has been stated by C W.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that C W.6/PW.4- Krishnaia h is his fatherin-law. He is not aware whether there is a civil dispute between accused No.2 on the one hand and PWs-4 and 5 on the other. He denied that there was a criminal case pending against CW.6/PW.4Krishnaia h, filed by the wife of accused No.3 in Cr.No.236/2013 and/or the pendency of C.C.No.776/2015.

¶152

CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaia h has stated that when he was in his land, there was a quarrel in the land of CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswam y where

¶153

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶154

¶155

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8Naveen Kuma r were working and the accused having come there, had picked up a quarrel with CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8Naveen Kuma r. On hearing the same, he went to the land. He has reiterated the allegations made by CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippann a. In the crossexamination, he has admitted that C W.5/PW.3Prabhaka r and CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa are the children of his elder sister. He has further admitted that he has no land near Sy.No.69/D. He admitted that there are several complaints pending in between the accused and himself. He further admitted that relationship between himself and the accused is strained.

¶156

CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswam y has stated that

¶157

he is having land bearing Sy.No.69/D measuring 50 Cents at Shankar Singh Camp. He has

¶158

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶159

¶160

reiterated the allegations made by C W.1/PW.1Harijana Thippanna . In the cross-examination, he has denied that the said land previously belonged to Venkaiah, who is the father of accused Nos. 1 and 2. He admitted that accused No.2Lakshminarayana had filed a case against him and others at Kurugodu police station. He has also admitted that accused No.1-Chandrashekar

¶161

has filed a case against him and CW.9/PW.6Srinivasa and others. He further admitted that father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and father of CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa are brothers and there is a dispute between them. CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa has stated that at the request of the complainant, he had written the complaint at Ex.P.1 as per the say of the complainant. He, however, denied that the signature on the said complaint belongs to him but later again he has stated that the signature

¶162

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶163

¶164

belongs to him. During the course of crossexamination, he has denied that his services in KSRTC were terminated. He has admitted that CW.5/PW.3-Prabhaka r is his younger brother. He has denied that C W.6/PW.4- Krishnaia h is his elder sister's husband. He states that he does not know if his father and father of accused Nos.1 and 2 were brothers. He denies any knowledge of civil suit having been filed by C W.5/PW.3-Prabhakar against accused Nos.1 and 2. He admits that the accused had filed a criminal case against him and others in Cr.No.214/2014 which was after he had filed a complaint under Section 307 of IPC against the accused. He admits that accused No.2Lakshminarayana had filed a case against him and others in Cr.No.236/2014. He states that he does not know if there are about 10 cases which had been filed by accused against him. He however

¶165

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶166

¶167

admits that he does not have any cordial

¶168

relationship with the accused. He denies that any incident had taken place and/or the complainant requested him to write a complaint and he wrote the complaint by himself. He further states that he does not know about opening of a rowdy-sheet against him in Kurugodu police station.

¶169

CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni is the ASI, Kurugodu police station. He has deposed that on 03.08.2014 at 6:30 a.m. the complainant came to the police station and lodged the written complaint which was registered by him in Cr.No.213/2014, directed the constable to take the FIR to the Court. He has identified the complaint as Ex.P.1. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that no one had come along with the complainant to the police station. He has however admitted that CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa and

¶170

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶171

¶172

CW.5/PW.3-Prabhaka r are brothers and

¶173

CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaia h is their relative. He further admitted that there is a civil dispute regarding Sy.No.69/D between CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhaka r, CW.6/PW.4Krishnaiah

¶174

and the accused. He has further stated that he is aware of 8 cases filed against C W.6/PW.4Krishnaia h in Kurugodu Police Station. He however denied that the present complaint was filed at the instance of CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3Prabhakar and CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah.

¶175

CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kuma r is the driver. He has stated that he does not know about the incident and hence, the Public Prosecutor sought permission of the Court to treat him as hostile and cross- examined. All the suggestions made to him were denied by him. Nothing much was elicited from him during the course of cross-examination.

¶176

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶177

¶178

In the course of the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he has admitted that there is enmity between the accused and CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa. He has admitted that in view of the same, CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa has got the complainant to file the complaint against the accused.

¶179

CW.14/PW.9-N.Rudramuni, is the Deputy

¶180

Superintendent of Police. He has stated that he has taken up further investigation of the case from CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni on 03.08.2014. He went to the spot and conducted Spot Mahazar. He seized the axe and two chappals, recorded the statement of witnesses, had drawn the sketch of the spot, obtained Caste Certificate of the accused and the complainant from the Tahsildar, obtained the Wound Certificate, completed investigation and filed charge-sheet. In the cross-

¶181

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶182

¶183

examination, he has denied all the suggestions. He has admitted that M.Os.1 and 2 could be generally found in the house of any agriculturist. He has denied the suggestion that no one had given a statement before him. He has stated that he does not know any dispute regarding the land between the accused and CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa. He has denied that false charge-sheet had been filed.

¶184

CW.12/PW.10-Dr.Rangaswam y is the doctor who examined the complainant on 03.08.2014 at 11:30 a.m. He found a lacerated wound in the middle of the head measuring 6 x 4 cms and also contusion on the back measuring 6 cms which are simple injuries and as such, he has issued the Wound Certificate as per Ex.P.8. He admits certain overwriting in the Wound Certificate from 7:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. He admits his overwriting as

¶185

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶186

¶187

regards the injury caused on the head as also the contusion. He states that he has not been shown any weapons which could have caused the injuries.

¶188

These being the depositions, Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the panchnama of the spot, Ex.P.3 is the Caste Certificate, Ex.P.4 is the FIR, Ex.P.5, the statement of PW-8 marked during the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, Ex.P.6

¶189

is the sketch of the spot, Ex.P.7 is the RTC extract of the land, Ex.P.8 is the Wound Certificate. M.O.1 being the axe and M.O.2 being the two chappals.

¶190

Re-appreciation of all the evidence on record would indicate that there are disputes as regards the land where the incident occurred between CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4Krishnaia h and accused No.1Chandrashekhar and accused No.2-

¶191

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶192

¶193

Lakshminarayana. The said dispute had resulted in filing of various complaints and suits among

¶194

themselves.

¶195

The accused during the cross-examination of all the witnesses have put forward the theory that the complaint had been filed against the accused only to try and make the accused to come to the terms with CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar and CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaia h by making use of the complainant who is their labourer/employee to file a false complaint. Even the complainant is not clear as regards the complaint.

¶196

It is also admitted that the complaint was drafted by CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa and it is the said complaint which was presented before CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni by the complainant.

¶197

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶198

¶199

The medical evidence also is not trustworthy. There is lot of overwriting in the wound certificate. The doctor has not opined as to the manner in which the injury has been caused or can be caused. The doctor has also admitted that he has given the Wound Certificate at the instance of the police.

¶200

CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni, the ASI has

¶201

categorically stated about the 8 cases being pending against C W.6/PW.4- Krishnaia h and the civil dispute regarding Sy.No.69/D where the incident occurred.

¶202

The injured eye-witness testimony is untrustworthy, since he has acted as per the instructions of his employer who had a dispute with the Accused. If that testimony is discarded, more

¶203

so, since he did not support the case of the

¶204

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

¶205

¶206

prosecution in his deposition but only supported partially after being treated as hostile during the course of cross examination, there are several loopholes and lacunas in the case of the prosecution.

¶207

The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has been unable to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are of the opinion that the accused are not guilty of the offences alleged against them. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the offences alleged by extending benefit of doubt.

¶208