The High Court of Karnataka allowed the complainant's criminal appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., setting aside the Sessions Court's acquittal and restoring the trial Court's conviction for offences under Sections 143, 323, 324, and 447 r/w 149 IPC.
Impugned judgment set aside; trial Court judgment restored; accused to be summoned and sentenced.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.392 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SMT. Y. R. MANJAMMA, W/O K. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHANTHIGRAMA, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K., ADVOCATE AND SRI. G.K.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
2
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUNDALA KOPPALI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAQMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R6/STATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.11.2009, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN CRI. APPEAL NO.80/2008 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN) AND JMFC COURT AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.634/2008 DATED 12.6.2008.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.07.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is by the complainant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2009, in Crl.A.No.80/2008 on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, by which the said appeal filed by accused came to be allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
3
Court for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324, 447 r/w Section 149 I.P.C, in C.C.No.634/2000
on the file of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC II Court, Hassan.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
4
No.5 assaulted with a club on her stomach, accused No.4 assaulted on the right back portion with a coconut leaf stick (JqÀªÉÆmÉÖ). Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the complainant with hands and thereby all the accused persons committed the offences punishable under
Section 143, 323, 324, 447 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C.
have denied the incriminating evidence.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
5
12.06.2007, the trial Court found accused guilty of the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced them as detailed in the judgment and order.
is before this Court contending that the Sessions Court has erroneously allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons and the same is against facts and circumstances of the case. The Sessions Court has failed to appreciate that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion that the charges leveled against accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Sessions Court has also failed to appreciate the contents of the wound certificate and erred in comparing with the oral evidence.
The Sessions Court has carried away by the fact that
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
6
there is civil dispute between the parties and for that reason disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Sessions Court has also erred in not relying upon the attendance register which clearly state that on 06.11.1999, complainant was on leave. The Sessions Court has also erred in not relying upon the evidence of PWs-3 and 4 which corroborate the testimony of complainant. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable and prays to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court and restore the judgment and order of the trial Court.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
7
that there was dispute between complainant and accused with regard to alleged right of way passing through the land of complainant and she was objecting for the same and in this background the incident took place i.e., on 06.11.1999 at 12-00 noon, when complainant along with PW-3, Sharada and PW-4, Shiva were having tender coconut, accused persons assaulted complainant with the sickle, club and a coconut leaf stick and caused bleeding injury. PW-3 and 4 shifted the complainant to the hospital and on intimation the MLC report, the concerned police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of complainant and based on it registered the case. On the point of jurisdiction, it was transferred to the Dudda Police station after concluding investigation, charge sheet was filed.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
8
during the course of her evidence, complainant who is examined as PW-1 has deposed to this effect. A suggestion is made to these witnesses i.e., PW 1 to 4 with regard to the said dispute, and they have admitted the said fact. In fact, the complainant has admitted that a civil suit is pending between her husband and the accused persons with regard to the said land i.e, the accused persons claiming right of way in the said land. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the relationship between complainant and accused persons was stained on account of dispute with regard to right of way and that was the motive for the accused persons to assault the complainant on 06.11.1999.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
9
Assistant Child Development Officer, Hassan. In Ex.D1 which is dated 19.09.2005, it is stated that on 06.11.1999 complainant has worked in the Anganawadi from 9:30 a.m to 1:30 p.m.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
10
came to know that on 06.11.1999, complainant was on leave. Though she has been cross-examined at length suggesting that only to help the complainant she is giving false evidence, she has withstood the rigour of crossexamination. In fact in the light of unequivocal testimony of PW-2 and 3 regarding the presence of complainant at the place of incident and the fact of she being assaulted by the accused persons and in the light of MLC report at Ex.P3 and her injury certificate at Ex.P6, the prosecution has proved that at the time of incident, the complainant was present in the land and she was assaulted by the accused and consequently she did not work at the Anganawadi on that day. Not even a single suggestion is made by the accused to the complainant as to how she suffered the injuries in question, if they were not caused due to assault by the accused. The trial Court in detail has discussed these aspects and come to a correct conclusion that on the date of incident complainant was on leave and she was present at the place of incident and PW-3, Sharada and PW-4 Shiva were present with her.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
11
incident took place, number of workers were working in the land in question and in fact PW-1, 3 and 4 went to the land to give food to the workers and other villagers were also present in the land when the incident took place. However, except PW-3 and 4, no other person is cited as eye witness. During the cross-examination, it is elicited through PW-1, 3 and 4 that none of the villagers and workers came to the rescue of complainant. It is also elicited that the villagers were also claiming right of way in the land of the complainant.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
12
of them as witnesses. Anyhow, it is for the Court to examine the evidence of PW-1, 3 and 4 and to determine whether they are reliable and trustworthy witnesses. If so, their evidence could be very well taken into consideration to decide whether the allegations against accused are proved or not.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
13
point that in Shanthigrama both Government Hospital and police station are available. However, their evidence proves the fact that since the complainant was injured and suffered bleeding injury, their primary concern was to get her treatment. Looking to the nature of the injury suffered by the complainant, they might have thought it appropriate to get treatment at Government Hospital, Hassan. When the complainant was in the hospital, on the intimation given by the Hospital Authorities, the Hassan town police has recorded her statement and based on it registered the case. Thereafter, on point of jurisdiction, it has been transferred to the Hassan Rural Police Station. As noted earlier, despite lengthy crossexamination, the defence has failed to point out any discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1, 3 and 4, so as to disbelieve their evidence.
14 CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
Consequently, the prosecution could not examine him. The injury certificate is marked through the Investigating Officer. It corroborate with the testimony of PW-1, 3 and 4. The history of injury is stated to be assault. The incident took place at around 12-00 noon and the injured was examined by the Doctor at 2-00 p.m. The evidence of PW-1, 3 and 4 prove that after the assault, PW-1 was taken to the hospital by PW-3 and 4. After the incident, they have decided to go to the Government Hospital, Hassan and consequently, it will not affect the prosecution case because the injured did not choose to take treatment at Shanthigrama Government Hospital and also lodge complaint at the said place. In fact, during his cross-examination, PW-4 has deposed that Shanthigrama Hospital was closed which part of his testimony is not disputed by the defence. Thus, the injury certificate at Ex.P6 corroborate and support the case of the prosecution and testimony of PW-1, 3 and 4.
23. It is the definite case of the prosecution that
after the incident, the accused left the weapons used for
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
15
assaulting the complainant at the spot and the same is recovered through Mahazar Ex.P2. PW-2 K Manjappa is a witness to the spot Mahazar who has spoken to about it and stated that the police visited the spot and through Mahazar Ex.P2 seized MOs-1 to 3. Though he has been cross-examined at length, nothing material is elicited to demonstrate that he is not a truthful witness. Except the fact that this witness has filed a civil suit against accused No.1 - Annaiah and Accused No.5 - Jayaram, this court finds no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
16 CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
into motion. Such being the case at any stretch of imagination it could be accepted that complainant took a MOs-1 to 3 to the police station and handed them over to the Investigating Officer. It appears by mistake complainant has deposed to that effect. In fact, the evidence of PW-2 coupled with the testimony of the Investigating Officer PW-6, the prosecution has proved the spot-cum-seizure mahazar.
17 CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 143 and accused Nos.3 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C.
ORDER
(1) Appeal filed by the complainant under Section 372 Cr.P.C is allowed.
CRL.A.NO.392 OF 2011
18
Sd/JUDGE
RR/CLK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of accused persons by the Sessions Court deserves to be allowed.
Whether the finding of the Sessions Court acquitting the accused is perverse and contrary to oral and documentary evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Y. R. MANJAMMA
AVVAIAH
VISHWA @ VISHWANATHA
ANNAIAH @ LAKSHMEGOWDA
PAPA @ PAPANNA
JAYARAMA
J.M.KHAZI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
