Allowed

Siddeshi @ Siddesha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024CRL.A/1089/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction of six accused for rioting and assault offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326 r/w 149 IPC arising from a tamarind tree dispute. Citing material contradictions among the five injured witnesses, injuries inconsistent with alleged overt acts, a prior-day complaint by accused's side, and relatedness of witnesses, the High Court acquitted all six appellants.

What the court decided

AI extract

Siddeshi @ Siddesha Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1089 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIDDESHI @ SIDDESHA S/O JAYAPPA AGED : 21 YEARS AGRICULTURE R/O CHITRAHALLI GOLLARAHATTI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶9

JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS AGRICULTURE

¶10

SANGAPPA S/O JAYAPPA AGED 23 YEARS AGRICULTURE

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT SHIVAMMA D/O JAYAPPA AGED 24 YEARS HOUSEHOLD

¶13

MANJUNATH S/O BASAVARAJA AGED : 21 YEARS AGRICULTURE

¶14

SANGAPPA S/O ADADERU ALLAPPA

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶17

ALL ARE R/O CHITRAHALLI GOLLARAHATTI HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI S B PAVIN, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLALKERE POLICE CHITRADURGA

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 7/9/2012 IN S.C. No.5/2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.144, 148, 324, 326 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 to 6 praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.5/2011 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 6 have been convicted for the offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶29

hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) . They are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence under Section 144 of IPC; fine of Rs.2,000/- each, for the offence under Section 148 of IPC; fine of Rs.3,000/- each, for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 6 were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

¶30

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as under;

¶31

Accused No.2 possess certain extent of land adjacent to the complainant’s land and there is a bund in between the two lands. Along side of this bund, there are number of tamarind trees, upon which, both the parties are staking their claim. In the evening of the day previous to 20.04.2010, the complainant and his brothers were shedding the tamarind fruits from the trees and at that time, accused No.2 took objection for that and prevented

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶33

them from reaping the fruits. Some altercation took place at that time. On the next day i.e. on 20.04.2010 at about 12.00 Noon, the complainant, his wife Smt.Nirmala and his brother Sri.Girish were doing some work in their garden. At that time, accused No.1 who is the son of accused No.2 were seen cutting the branches of the tamarind tree and therefore, the complainant went near the tree and took objection for cutting the branches. Then accused No.1 got down from the tree and by that time, the other accused also came to that place having weapons like macchu, axe and sticks in their hands. They all picked up quarrel with the complainant and then, accused No.1 assaulted the complainant (PW1) with macchu on his head. The other accused also started assaulting him and seeing this altercation, the complainant's brother Sri.Girish (PW2) and father Sri.Eshwarappa (PW3) came to that place. The accused assaulted them also with axe and sticks. Then the complainant's wife Smt.Nirmala (PW4) and another brother Sri.Mallikarjuna (PW5) came to that place for rescuing them. The accused left that place by putting a life

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶35

threat to them. Thereafterwards, by telephoning to the hospital, an ambulance was secured and the injured were shifted to the hospital. The statement of the complainant was recorded in the hospital at about 1.45 p.m. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons. After committal, the Sessions Court framed the charge against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

¶36

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 7. The statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has formulated the points for consideration and after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the appellants and passed the sentence as noted above and acquitted them of the offence under Section 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶38

said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged in this appeal.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there was a quarrel between the accused persons and PW1 on 19.04.2010 and for that, a complaint came to be filed against the complainant and his family members and therefore, to wreck vengeance, a false complaint came to be filed on the next day ie., 20.04.2010. He further contends that PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he was alone, which is inconsistent with the contents of Ex.P1 – complaint. PW1 has not whispered anything about accused No.1 reaping the tamarind fruits in his evidence, which has been stated in the complaint – Ex.P1. PW1 has deposed that accused No.1 assaulted with macchu on the left side of his head, but the wound certificate – Ex.P4 reveal the cut lacerated wound over the

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶42

left parietal region, which is contrary to what has been stated by PW1. PW2 – younger brother of PW1 has deposed that the assault was made on the back of the head of PW1, but the injury found on PW1 is over left parietal region and no injury was found on the back of head of PW1. PW3 has stated that accused No.1 has

¶43

assaulted on the head and chest of PW2 which is not stated in the complaint or by PW2. Even though the alleged incident has occurred on 20.04.2010, the seizure was held on 21.04.2010 and the club, macchu, axe and bamboo sticks were seized, stating that they were lying on the spot. He further submits that even though in Ex.P6, it is stated that the injury No.3 is grievous in nature, but no document of Basaveshwara Hospital has been produced and no X-ray report has been submitted. In Ex.P2 there is

¶44

a mention that macchu / axe has been given to the Investigating Officer which was kept aside at the time of preparing the mahazar. There are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 with regard to the overt-acts of each of the accused. The said contradictions are

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶46

material contradictions creating doubt in the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellants.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State argued that the Trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 6. He has supported the reasons assigned by the Trial Court. He further argued that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is sufficient to convict the appellants for the offences leveled against them. He contends that the contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 are not the material contradictions. On these grounds, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

On the grounds made out and considering the arguments advanced, the following point arises for my consideration;

¶49

“Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 6 for the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶52

offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326 of IPC?”

¶53

My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons;

¶54

P.W.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he,

¶55

his children P.W.1 and P.W.2 and his daughter-in-law – P.W.4 are attending the Court at Holalkere. He further stated that the said case is registered as there was a quarrel on the previous day when his children were reaping tamarind fruits and one Smt. Lakshmamma wife of accused No. 2 raised objection for that and she was assaulted. He has stated that the said case is a false case but he has admitted that they are attending the said criminal case. Even P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that they are attending the criminal case which is registered on the complaint filed by the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence on record it is clear that there is dispute with regard to tamarind tree situated in the land between the accused persons and P.W.1 and

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶57

P.W.3 and quarrels are going on in that regard. It is also clear that on the previous day, i.e., 19.04.2010, with regard to a quarrel one Lakshmamma wife of accused No. 2 had filed a complaint against P.W.1 to P.W.4 and a criminal case is registered against them. The incident in the case is said to have occurred on next day, i.e., on 20.04.2010. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that as there was a quarrel, on the complaint filed by wife of accused No. 2 against P.W.1 to P.W.4 on the previous day, i.e., 19.04.2010, a false case came to be registered against the appellant Nos. 1 to 6 on the next day, i.e., 20.04.2010.

¶58

P.W.1 has filed complaint as per Ex.P.1. As per the averments of complaint Ex.P.1, accused No. 1 – Siddesh had climbed the tamarind tree situated on the bund and he was cutting the branches for food to his sheep and P.W.1 went near the tamarind tree and asked him why he was cutting the branches of the tamarind tree and at that time accused Nos.2 to 6 who were nearby came together

¶59

11 -

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶61

holding weapons. P.W.1 in his evidence has not sated anything with regard to the said aspect but he has stated that accused No. 1 – Siddesh, at about 1.00 pm, on 20.04.2010, when he was working in his land came there and tried to assault him with machhu and along with him accused No. 2 had come and thereafter one after the other accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 came there. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence as stated in Ex.P.1 – complaint regarding accused No. 1 cutting the branches of tamarind tree and P.W.2 going and objecting for the same. P.W.3 has deposed that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had come to cut the tamarind tree and at that time P.W.1 and P.W.2 arrived and quarrel took place. Therefore, in that regard there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and averments of complaint – Ex.P.1.

¶62

P.W.1 has deposed that accused No. 3 assaulted P.W.2 – Girisha with axe on his left leg. P.W.2 – Girisha has deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted him with machhu on back of head of PW.1 and on his right leg.

¶63

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶64

P.W.3 has deposed that accused No. 1 dashed his head to

¶65

the chest of P.W.2 – Girisha and he fell down. P.W.4 has deposed that accused Nos. 3 and 5 have assaulted P.W.2 – Girisha with club. P.W.5 has not stated anything with regard to assault on P.W.2 – Girisha.

¶66

P.W.1 has deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted P.W.2 on the left leg with machhu. P.W.2 has deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted on the back of head of PW.1 with a machhu. P.W.3 has deposed that accused No.3 assaulted P.W.1 on his head with machhu. P.W.4 has deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted P.W.1 with a machhu on his head and on his body. P.W.1 himself has not stated anything regarding accused No. 1 assaulting him on his back and on his body. P.W.5 has deposed that accused No. 1 got down from the tamarind tree and along with other accused started assaulting P.W.1 and therefore there is contradiction with regard to assault on P.W.1 by accused No. 1 or by accused No. 3.

¶67

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶68

P.W.1 has deposed that accused Nos.5 and 6

¶69

assaulted P.W.3 on his left hand with a kanige. P.W.2 has deposed that accused Nos. 3 and 6 have assaulted P.W.3 on his left hand. P.W.3 has deposed that accused No. 2 assaulted him with club on his left hand. P.W.4 has deposed that accused No. 5 assaulted P.W.3 with a bamboo stick. P.W.5 has deposed that accused No.3 assaulted P.W.3 with bamboo stick on his left wrist. Therefore, there is inconsistent evidence and there are contradictions with regard to who assaulted P.W.3.

¶70

P.W.4 has deposed that accused No. 4 dragged her. P.W.2 has deposed that accused No.4 held hairs of P.W.4 and dragged her. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have not stated anything with regard to accused No. 4 dragging P.W.4.

¶71

As per Ex.P.4 – wound certificate P.W.1 has sustained cut lacerated wound over left parietal region. P.W.1 has stated that even accused No. 1 assaulted him

¶72

on left side of his head. P.W.2 has stated that accused No.

¶73

1 assaulted P.W.1 with machhu on the back of his head.

¶74

14 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶76

P.W.4 has stated that accused No.1 assaulted P.W.3 with

¶77

machhu on his head. Therefore, the injury found in Ex.P.4

¶78

– wound certificate is not corresponding to the part of head as deposed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4.

¶79

In Ex.P.5 – wound certificate it is stated that P.W.2 has sustained injury on his right shin (right leg). P.W.1

¶80

has stated that accused No.3 assaulted P.W.2 with an axe on left leg. But, injury is on the right leg. Therefore, there is contradiction in the overt act alleged and injury as stated in Ex.P.5 – wound certificate.

¶81

P.W.1 to P.W.5 are close relatives. In view of the above contradictions and as there was earlier incident on 19.04.2010 and wife of accused No.2 filing complaint against P.W.1 to P.W.4 the alleged incident on 20.04.2010 appears to be doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons assaulted P.W.1 to P.W.3. Therefore, benefit of doubt requires to be extended to the accused persons and

¶82

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:4533 CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012

¶83

they are required to be acquitted for the offence for which

¶84

they are convicted.

¶85

17. In the result, the following;

¶86

O R D E R

¶87

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶88

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2012 passed in S.C. No. 5/2011 is set aside.

¶89

(iii) The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 6 are acquitted for offence under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326 of IPC read with

Section 149 of IPC.

Sd/JUDGE

GH/LRS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Siddeshi @ Siddesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Siddeshi @ Siddesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayappa Alias Balu S/O Bhairu Nilajakar Vs State of Karnataka

Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayanaswamy B.V. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Harijana Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka