Dismissed

State by Police Inspector/Sho, v. Renuka Prasad

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021CRL.A/744/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the State challenged the acquittal of the respondent accused in a case involving assault and obstruction of police duty. The High Court examined the prosecution evidence, noting discrepancies and lack of corroboration. The Court held that the trial court's decision was supported by evidence and no grounds existed to set aside the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal is dismissed; the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.03.2011 is confirmed.

State by Police Inspector/Sho, Vs Renuka Prasad — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.744 OF 2011 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR/SHO, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION. ...APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶9

AND:

¶10

RENUKA PRASAD

¶11

S/O LATE SRI GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 101, 2ND CROSS, 10TH "C" MAIN, LALBAGH, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI J PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND 3 CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT: 30.03.2011 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-1, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.1214/10-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 506, 504 AND 333 OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is filed by the State for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.03.2011 passed in S.C.No.1214/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 333 of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by Sri.Ravi Kumar, Police Constable at Ashok Nagar Traffic Police Station, the Police have registered the case in Crime No.264/2007. The allegations made in the complaint are that on 20.06.2007 at about 5.15 p.m. when the complainant was on duty at Opera Junction, a car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-D-5586 with yellow number plate came and halted at no parking place. The complainant noted down the number of the said car and the said car went away. After half an hour, the driver of the said car came near the complainant and picked up quarrel as to why he noted down the car number. At that time the traffic PSI was

¶20

¶21

also present at the said junction. The accused abused the complainant and PSI in filthy language and pulled the right hand of the complainant. On the information given by the PSI, Cheetah vehicle came to the spot and took the accused to the Police Station. The complainant took the treatment in Bowring hospital. On registering the case, Police have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence. The accused denied the charges read over to him and pleaded not guilty.

¶22

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined nine witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9 and the documents are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that he has no defence evidence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence available on

¶23

¶24

record to establish the case of the prosecution and has acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 333 of IPC. The State has preferred the appeal challenging the said order of acquittal.

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State would contend that the evidence of P.W.8 viz., injured-victim and P.W.7 eye-witness present at the spot at the time of incident goes to prove that the accused had picked up quarrel with the injured-complainant who was discharging the duty and has manhandled using criminal force. On account of the force used by the accused, the complainant sustained grievous injuries. The accused has also caused obstruction in discharge of duty by the injured/complainant. The evidence of P.W.6 confirms that the injured/complainant has taken treatment at Bowring hospital and the constable had sustained fracture of metacarpal bone. Even though the independent witnesses viz., P.Ws.3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 9 corroborates with

¶26

¶27

the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, but the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence placed on record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 do not prove that the accused has caused obstruction to P.W.8 in discharging his duties. Ex.P-10 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor, who has examined the complainant/injured, wherein it is stated that the injured/complainant has sustained fracture but the X-ray has not been produced. There are several discrepancies and variations in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thus, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused.

¶29

Having heard learned High Court Government

¶30

Pleader for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent-accused, this Court has gone through the evidence placed on record and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

¶31

¶32

The present appeal is against the order of acquittal.

¶33

In such a case, as observed by the Apex Court, High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with the order of acquittal, merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence, in such cases, the High Court may reverse the order of acquittal. The High Court will be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law.

¶34

In the present case P.W.1 is the ASI, who recorded

¶35

the complaint filed by P.W.8 injured-victim. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the spot mahazar witnesses. P.W.4 is the Police Constable, who took the accused to Ashok Nagar Police Station. P.W.5 - Inspector of Ashok Nagar Police Station, who had assigned the

¶36

¶37

duty to the complainant. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who has examined the injured/complainant and issued Ex.P-10 medical certificate. P.W.7 is the PSI, who was present at the spot at the time of incident. P.W.8 is the injured/complainant, who was on duty at the spot. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer, who has submitted charge sheet after investigation.

¶38

The evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 disclose that P.W.8injured/complainant has sustained injury on the right hand little finger. Then P.W.8 had gone to the Bowring Hospital for treatment. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who has examined the injury/complainant and has issued medical certificate as per Ex.P-10. The contents of Ex.P-10 disclose that X-ray of the little finger of the complainant was taken, but the X-ray report is not produced before the Court.

¶39

In the cross-examination P.W.6-Doctor has admitted

¶40

that the injury may be caused by self fall or self hit to the hard object or if a person assaults another person on head with fist or hand. Thus, in view of the evidence of P.W.6, two views are

¶41

¶42

possible i.e., either the complainant must have sustained the fracture due to self fall or self hit to a hard object, or when the accused pulled is hand. There is no convincing evidence to show that the injured/complainant has sustained the injury viz., the fracture of metacarpal on account of accused pulling his hand.

¶43

P.Ws.2 and 3 are said to be the independent mahazar witnesses. These witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of these two witnesses will not make out a case that the accused had assaulted the injured/complainant on the said place.

¶44

Even the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 7 and 8 are not corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 9 is of not much assistance to the prosecution case.

¶45

P.W.1 is the ASI, who recorded the statement of P.W.8. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and has submitted the charge sheet. He has stated

¶46

¶47

about recording evidence of some of the independent witnesses and other Police Officials.

¶48

On re-appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and

¶49

other witnesses, there are several variations and discrepancies in their evidence. Hence, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view

¶51

that there are no valid grounds to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶54

ii The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.03.2011 passed in S.C.No.1214/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Bengaluru City, is confirmed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

BSR

State by Police Inspector/Sho, v. Renuka Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State by Police Inspector/Sho, v. Renuka Prasad

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

Union of India by Vs Subramani

M/S. Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Sri. Krishna

State of Karnataka Vs D.S. Shivakumar @ Kariya

Sri. Anil Kumar S S Vs State of Karnataka by Psi

Smt Mangala Gowri Vs Sri Muthuraj

Chikkanna Vs Narasegowda