State appeal against acquittal in an assault case alleging restraint, abuse, head injury with a Bachi and life threat. The High Court found no cogent or corroborative evidence, endorsed the appellate court's appreciation, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672 CRL.A No. 100111 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100111 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA)
AND:
UMESH S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY KAMMAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER, R/O: HOUSE NO.15, KAMBAR ONI, MALAPUR, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.55/2016 DATED 05.08.2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD IN CRL. A. NO.55 OF 2016 AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.428 OF 2014 DATED 22.03.2016 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672 CRL.A No. 100111 of 2017
JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short, ‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2016 dated 05.08.2016 wherein, the Appellate Court has set aside the order of conviction dated 22.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.428/2014 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Dharwad (for short, ‘trial Court’).
PW1-Manohar Balappa Kambar lodged a complaint alleging that on 05.12.2013 at about 3:00 pm when he was in backyard of his house, the accused came and restrained him not to move here and there and abused in filthy language, assaulted with Bachi on his head and also gave life threat. Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC.
of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 324 and 506 of IPC as per judgment dated 05.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court, the State is before this Court in this appeal.
injury. The evidence of Doctor was discarded by the Appellate Court on the ground that under what circumstances PW1 sustained injury remained in question. The Appellate Court has also discarded the evidence of the injured witness. Further, learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offences. The reasons assigned by the trial Court was not properly read and appreciated by the Appellate Court and thereby, allowed the appeal by committing grave error in acquitting the accused. The same is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law and on these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal.
1) Whether the prosecution has made out
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court?
2) What order?
Point No. 1 : In the negative
Point No. 2 : As per final order
prosecution that PW1-Manohar Balappa Kambar lodged a complaint alleging that on 05.12.2013 at about 3:00 pm when he was in backyard of his house, the accused came and restrained him not to move here and there and abused in filthy language, assaulted with Bachi on his head and also gave life threat and committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. Case was registered against the accused and charges were framed for the alleged commission
of offences, but the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 12; documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10 and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. It
is the allegation of the prosecution that the incident took place on 05.12.2013 at about 3:00 pm and the complaint-Ex.P1 reveals that the complaint came to be filed on 05.12.2013 at 18:30 hours. The FIR-Ex.P9 reveals that the Police have submitted FIR on the same day at 10:15 pm. Ex.P7-Wound Certificate reveals that the injured went to the hospital along with Police Constable Sri.V.N.Badiger with history of assault on 05.12.2013. PW8-Dr. Prabhu Tippanna has pointed in Ex.P7 that the injury sustained by the accused is on the left side of his head which is simple in nature. PW1 was admitted to the hospital on 05.12.2013 and discharged on 06.12.2013. PW8Doctor has not deposed anything against the accused and the name of the accused is also not shown in Ex.P7-Wound Certificate. The prosecution or the Medical Officer has not explained anything as to why PW8 has not shown the name of the person in the Wound Certificate as to who has assaulted the injured, which will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged incident.
Kupendra Venkatesh Prabhu, said to be attestors to Exs.P4 and P5, have deposed as to the contents of the Mahazar. PW7Srikant Basavaraj Badiger, who is the close relative of the accused and complainant and said to be the eyewitness to the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has been cross-examined by learned APP after treating him as hostile witness. Even in cross-examination, this witness has categorically denied the statement recorded by the IO said to have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. marked at Ex.P6. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers from this witness. The only remaining witness PW1 and PW6, who are the complainant and his mother are concerned, both have deposed that the accused assaulted PW1 with Bachi. PWs1 and 6 have clearly admitted that there was a dispute regarding property between them and the accused. Further, they admitted that about 15 to 20 times they approached the Police and the Police have advised them to settle the matter approaching the Civil Court.
is no consistency as to the time of incident in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
14. On re-appreciation/re-examination of the entire
evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that there is no cogent, corroborative, trustworthy and believable evidence in the prosecution witnesses. The Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and facts. Hence, I do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
discussions, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
trial Court along with original records, forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
RH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State made out grounds to interfere with the appellate court's judgment of acquittal of the accused under Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 IPC?
What order should follow?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka
Umesh S/o Krishnamurthy Kammar
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
