Dismissed

Yallappa S/O. Neelappa Doddamani v. Santosh S/O. Balappa Danammanavar

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021CRL.A/2638/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the Sessions Court's judgment which acquitted several accused for offences under the IPC and convicted only some for causing hurt, finding the trial court's findings correct.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits; impugned judgment of acquittal partially set aside and conviction upheld.

Yallappa S/O. Neelappa Doddamani Vs Santosh S/O… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2638 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YALLAPPA SON OF NEELAPPA DODDAMANI AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL NOW AT NAVALUR TQ & DIST: DHARWAD

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI:B V SOMAPUR, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SANTOSH

¶13

SON OF BALAPPA DANAMMANAVAR AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶14

ASHOK

¶15

SON OF BASAVANNEEPPA KAROGAL AGE:: 28 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶16

¶17

R/O TARLAGHATTA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶18

MANJUNATH SON OF SHIVAPUTRAPPA DANAMMANAVAR AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶19

CHANDRU SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA HADIMANI AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O TARLAGHATTA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶20

SHIVALINGAPPA SON OF GANGAPPA KAROGAL AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O TARLAGHATTA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶21

MUDAKAPPA

¶22

SON OF NINGAPPA KAROGAL AGE:40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O TARLAGHATTA TQ:KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶23

PARASAPPA SON OF MARIYAPPA DANAMMANAVAR AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O TARLAGHATTA

¶24

¶25

TQ:KUNDAGOL DIST:DHARWAD

¶26

8. NINGAPPA

¶27

SON OF MALLESHAPPA KALI AGE:39 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST: DHARWAD

¶28

JAGADISH

¶29

SON OF NINGAPPA DODDAMANI AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST: DHARWAD

¶30

10. BASAVARAJ

¶31

MOTHER: UDACHAVVA KALI AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST: DHARWAD

¶32

11. MAILARI

¶33

SON OF HANUMANTAPPA KALI AGE: 26 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NELAGUDDA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST: DHARWAD

¶34

12. MAHANTESH

¶35

SON OF NINGAPPA KALI AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O TARLAGHATTA TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST: DHARWAD

¶36

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶38

REP BY PSI SAVANOOR POLICE CIRCLE REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CIRCUIT BENCH DHARWAD

¶39

… RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI:M.S.HARAVI, ADV FOR SRI: S.A.HUDDAR, ADV FOR R1 TO R12 SRI:RAMESH B.CHIGARI, ADV FOR R13)

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 372 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK) HAVERI, IN SC NO. 55 OF 2009 DATED 27.02.2012 MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE AND ALL THE ACCUSEDRESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 12 BE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 148, 324, 307 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.

¶42

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

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The complainant in Crime No.51 of 2009 of Savanur Police Station, has preferred this appeal assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in favour of accused

¶45

¶46

Nos.4 to 7 and 9 to 12 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 307 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) and acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and also aggrieved by the sufficiency of sentence imposed on accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶47

Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant herein was admitted to the Government Hospital at Savanur. His statement was recorded by the police. The complainant stated that his brother Nagaraj was the driver of the mini lorry belonging to Ramanagouda Patil. About two years back, his brother Nagaraj was driving the said mini lorry and when many persons were traveling in the same, it met with an accident on Karadagi road, in which, 4 to 5 persons died and several persons were injured. A criminal case was registered against the said Nagaraj for causing death and injury by his rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry. In connection with the said criminal case, Nagaraj was attending JMFC Court, at Savanur regularly.

¶48

¶49

It is stated that on 18.03.2009, the complainant

¶50

and his brother Nagaraj went to the Court to attend the criminal case. Since the witnesses have not turned out, the case was adjourned. Therefore, the complainant and his brother Nagaraj were coming out of the Court hall and were in front of the chambers of the Government Advocate. In the meantime, accused Nos.1 to 12 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, with common object of committing crime, armed with beer bottle and iron rod, assaulted the complainant and his brother all over their body and caused grievous hurt. The advocate representing Nagaraj and others came and intervened in the matter. The incident had taken place at 1.45 p.m. within the Court precinct. The informant stated that since the accused have committed the offences with an intention to cause their death, requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, FIR was registered and the investigation was undertaken.

¶51

After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed

¶52

for the above said offences. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the matter to the

¶53

¶54

Sessions Court in SC No.55 of 2009 registered against accused Nos.1 and 12. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against them. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and identified Mos.1 to 4 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. However, during cross examination of PWs.1 and 2, Exs.D1 and 2 came to be marked.

¶55

The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default sentence. However, the Court opined that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the other offences and also opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.4 to 7, 9 to 12 for any of the offences and accordingly, they were acquitted for all

¶56

¶57

the above said offences. Aggrieved by the acquittal of accused and also sufficiency of sentence imposed on accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, the complainant is before this Court.

¶58

Heard Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.M.S.Haravi, learned counsel for Sri.S.A.Huddar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 12 and Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant being the informant given his statement while he was taking treatment in the Government Hospital at Savanur. He made specific allegation against each of the accused for having committed the offence. The reason for the accused to commit the offence is that they were traveling in the mini lorry in question and sustained injuries in the road accident while PW2 – Nagaraj was driving the offending vehicle, which is not in dispute. Therefore, there was ill-will

¶60

¶61

against Nagaraj for the accused to commit the offence. Accordingly, they have chosen the date of incident when the said Nagaraj had visited the Magistrate Court at Savanur to mark his attendance in the criminal case that was registered against him. While coming back from the Court, the complainant had also accompanied his brother Nagaraj and the accused have committed these offences.

¶62

Learned counsel further submitted that PW1 - the appellant herein is the injured eye witness. PW2 is also the injured eye witness. PW3 is the advocate who was at the scene of occurrence and had seen the incident in question. All the three witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution. Even though, PW4 has not fully supported the case of prosecution, he specifically stated that as on the date of incident, about 10 to 12 persons came and assaulted Nagaraj and complainant. There is absolutely no cross examination to disbelieve the version of these witnesses by the learned counsel for the accused. The accused have not taken any specific defence in their statement recorded under Section 313 of CrP.C.

¶63

10 -

¶64

Learned counsel further submitted that the tenor of cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 discloses that the accused were having ill-will against the brother of the complainant. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court should have considered the material on record and should have convicted all the accused for the charges leveled against them. But the Trial Court proceeded to convict accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 only for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, while acquitting the accused against other offences and further, acquitting accused No.4 to 7 and 9 to 12 for all the charges leveled against them. The Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused and also in imposing nominal fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is disproportionate to the offence in question. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice.

¶65

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-

¶66

accused Nos.1 to 12 supporting the impugned judgment of conviction passed against accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 and acquitting the said accused for other offences submitted that, the Trial Court has considered the material on record in a

¶67

11 -

¶68

proper perspective and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

¶69

Learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the contention of learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is sufficient to convict the accused for the offences in question. However, the Trial Court was not right in acquitting the accused for the offences except convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC only. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal in the interest of justice.

¶70

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶71

counsels for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration are:

¶72

“1. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitting accused Nos.4 to 7 and 9 to 12 for all the offences calls for any interference?

¶73

2. Whether the sentence imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- only on accused Nos.1 to 3

¶74

12 -

¶75

and 8 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC is disproportionate to the offence in question and calls for interference?”

¶76

My answer to the above points are in ‘Negative’ for the

¶77

following:

¶78

REASONS

¶79

It is the contention of prosecution that accused Nso.1 to 12 were having ill-will against PW2 - Nagaraj as he had caused accident which has resulted in injuries to the accused and their family members. The accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like beer bottle and iron rod etc., assaulted PWs.1 and 2 who have came to JMFC Court at Savanur, with an intention to cause their death. PWs.1 and 2 got injured and thereby, the accused committed the offences as stated above.

¶80

To prove this contention, the prosecution

¶81

examined the complainant-injured as PW1. He is the eye witness. PW2 is also injured eye witness. PW3 is the advocate representing PW2 and he is also examined as eye witness.

¶82

13 -

¶83

PW1 in his evidence has specifically stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the spot and accused No.1 assaulted PW2 with beer bottle, accused No.2 assaulted PW2 with iron rod on his shoulder and to his waste. They also assaulted the complainant and caused bleeding injuries. The witness stated that they tried to run away to escape from the assault, but they could not do so. Since they were injured, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Savanur. However, the witness stated that accused Nos.5 to 12 were also at the spot and they had brought beer bottle and gave to accused No.1 and those accused have abused him and PW2 and also kicked them with their legs.

¶84

Similarly, PW2 stated with regard to the specific overt act committed by accused Nos.1 and 3 and 8 who said to have assaulted him with beer bottle and iron rod and caused injuries. General allegations are made against other accused.

¶85

PW3 who is the eye witness to the incident has

¶86

stated that three of the accused have assaulted PW2 with beer bottle and caused injuries. However, this witness also

¶87

14 -

¶88

made general allegations against other accused. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P6, P7 and P8 are the wound certificate relating to PWs.1 and 2. As per these documents, both the injured have sustained only simple injuries. Taking into consideration these oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, the Trial Court proceeded to convict accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 only for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC, while acquitting them for other offences and also acquitting other accused for all the offences alleged. Even though, learned counsel for the appellant contended that PWs.1 to 3 have stated regarding the presence of accused Nos.4 to 7 and 9 to 12 at the scene of occurrence, I do not find any specific allegations made against them to hold that these witnesses have spoken to regarding any overt act committed by these accused. Even though PW1 stated that other accused have brought beer bottles and gave to accused No.1 and that they have kicked him and PW2 with their legs, there is no corroboration of his evidence by other witnesses. There are no corresponding injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2.

¶89

15 -

¶90

As I have observed earlier, specific overt act is alleged against accused No.1 to 3 and 8 and no such allegations are made against other accused. Simply because, there are general allegations made against all other accused stating that they were also present and they have also committed the offences, is not sufficient to attract the criminal penal provisions. In view of the nature of injuries mentioned in Exs.P6 to 8 that the injured have sustained only simple injuries, I do not find any reason to convict accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 for any offence other than Section 324 of IPC and also to impose higher punishment or to hold that accused Nos.4 to 7 and 9 to 12 are guilty of any of the offences alleged against them. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal. Similarly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 have also not preferred any appeal challenging their conviction.

¶91

I have gone through the impugned judgment of

¶92

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. It has taken into consideration all these materials on record and

¶93

16 -

¶94

rightly recorded its findings. Hence, I answer both the above points in ‘Negative’.

¶95

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶96

Sd/JUDGE

¶97

*bgn/-

Yallappa S/O. Neelappa Doddamani v. Santosh S/O. Balappa Danammanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yallappa S/O. Neelappa Doddamani v. Santosh S/O. Balappa Danammanavar

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

Sri.Annappa Kallappa Nayar Vs Sri.Iranna Kallappa Galibi

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala Vs the State of Karnataka

The City Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs Ram Gajanan Khatavkar

Erappa S/O Late Thimmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ismail S/O Khalandarsab Kunkur Vs the State of Karnataka