Allowed

Venkatesh @ Slum Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024CRL.A/1404/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. The Single Judge held that prosecution evidence suffered from material discrepancies regarding injuries, number of assailants, and medical records. The court found the appellants entitled to the benefit of doubt, acquitted them, and set aside the conviction order.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted of Sections 148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. Impugned conviction order set aside. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellant Venkatesh released forthwith.

Venkatesh @ Slum Venkatesh Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1404 OF 2012

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1360 OF 2012

¶9

IN CRL.A No. 1404/2012 BETWEEN:

¶10

VENKATESH @ SLUM VENKATESH S/O KARNA R/O NO 219, 2ND CROSS 12TH MAIN, SHANKAR MUTT BANGALORE-560010.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.11.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-IX, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.452/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 148 AND 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶21

IN CRL.A NO. 1360/2012

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

MANJUNATHA @ IRON MANJA S/O LATE CHANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/A NO.34, 4TH CROSS KURUBARAHALLY, J C NAGAR BANGALORE-560010.

¶24

PRASANTH S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/A NO.48, IST MAIN MAHALAKSHMIPURAM MICO LAYOUT BANGALORE-560010.

¶25

...APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI. A N RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-5600011.

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27/28.11.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-IX, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.452/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 148 AND 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶33

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

The judgment and order dated 27/28.11.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court - IX, Bengaluru City in S.C.No.452/2012 is assailed in this appeal.

¶36

The trial Court has convicted accused Nos.4, 7 and 9 for offences punishable under Section 148 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶37

For the offence under Section 307 of IPC, accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and for the offence under Section 148 of IPC they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default sentence of one month for nonpayment of fine.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶39

Criminal Appeal No.1404/2012 is preferred by

¶40

accused No.9 and Criminal Appeal No.1360/2012 is preferred by accused Nos.4 and 7.

¶41

Case of the prosecution is that, on 01.10.2011 at about 1.30 p.m., these appellants namely accused Nos.4, 7 and 9 along with accused No.6 – Keerthiraj and five Juveniles in conflict with law, formed an unlawful assembly armed with chopper, long and knife, with a common object of committing the murder of Rajesh – PW.6 and assaulted him with the said weapons on his head, left hand, abdomen, left leg and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 148, 307 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶42

Accused No.6 is shown as absconding. The trial was conducted against accused Nos.4, 7 and 9, the appellants herein. The trial Court based on the evidence of PWs.1, 6 to 9 and medical evidence and recovery of weapons, held that the prosecution has sufficiently established the guilt of the accused.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶44

Since this appeal is preferred by accused Nos.4, 7 and 9, this Court has to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the said accused to see as to whether the charges leveled against them under Section 307 and 148 are proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that in the FIR, names of the accused are not mentioned, subsequently, they are falsely implicated in this case. Initially, while the victim was admitted to the hospital, history furnished was that he was assaulted by unknown persons. The medical records pertaining to the victim from one Ananya Hospital and Nimhans are not produced and marked. There are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which go to the root of the prosecution case. The panch witnesses for the recovery of weapons have turned hostile. Therefore, the trial Court was not proper in convicting the appellants, ignoring the above discrepancies. Accordingly, they have

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶47

sought to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶48

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the injured PW.6 has fully supported the case of prosecution and his evidence his corroborated by the evidence of PWs.7 to 9, eye witnesses. They have identified the accused. Further, the wound certificate – Ex.P7 issued by the Doctor – PW.11 goes to show that the injured has sustained grievous injuries on the vital part of the body. The FSL report also confirm that the weapons used in these case had blood stains. Hence, he contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences charged against them. He therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

Law was set into motion by PW.1 – Chandramma, mother of victim – Rajesh (PW.6). Complaint is marked as Ex.P1. A perusal of the same goes to show that PW.1 was informed by one Prakash, a friend

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶51

of her son at about 1.30 p.m., on 01.10.2011 that her son Rajesh has been assaulted by one Charan and 4 to 5 others with chopper, long and knife and the persons present at the spot shifted her son to the hospital. Thereafter, complainant – PW.1 and Prakash – PW.7 went to one Ananya Hospital and saw the victim with injuries on the head, abdomen, left hand and left leg.

¶52

On the basis of Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1 case was registered against one Charan and others. According to PW.5 – Police Constable, on 10.10.2011 accused Nos.4 and 9 were apprehended. He has stated that since accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 were juveniles in conflict with law, they were produced before the Children’s Court.

¶53

In this case, the material witnesses are PWs.6 to 9. PW.6 is the injured and PW.7 to 9 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. In his testimony, PW.6 has stated that accused by name Charan stabbed him with a knife on his left shoulder and accused Nos.4, 7 and 9 assaulted him with the chopper on his head. He has not at

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶55

all stated that the said accused Nos.4, 7 and 9 were separately armed with choppers. In the cross-examination he has stated that accused Charan was holding a knife, Venkatesh i.e., accused No.9 was holding a chopper and accused Chetan was holding a knife. He has not stated that even accused Nos.4 and 7 were also armed with

¶56

choppers. In the chief-examination, he has made an omnibus statement that all the three accused were armed with chopper and assaulted on his head.

¶57

If the evidence of PW.7 is perused, he has deposed that there were 5 to 6 persons along with accused Charan and all the accused surrounded Rajesh (PW.6) and assaulted him with chopper, knife and long. He has made omnibus allegations against all the accused persons that they have assaulted the injured with weapons like chopper, knife and long. Similarly, PW.8 has stated that about 6 persons were assaulting Rajesh with a kathi (sickle), whereas PW9 has stated that about 7-8 persons

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶59

who were armed with choppers and knife assaulted Rajesh (PW6).

¶60

The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that PWs.7 to 9 are independent witnesses and they have deposed that these appellants were present among the accused persons. He, therefore, contended that the prosecution has established the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶61

Admittedly, the names of the appellants are not in the FIR. FIR is registered against one Charan and others. As per Ex.P1, the injured-PW6 was immediately shifted to one Ananya Hospital. His mother-PW1 and Prakash-PW7 went to Ananya Hospital and seen the injured in the said hospital. The prosecution has not placed any documents pertaining to the injured from Ananya Hospital. It is not forthcoming as to what was the history given at Ananya Hospital at the time of admission of the injured for treatment. PW6 has stated that he was unconscious and when he regained conscious he was

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶63

taking treatment in one Columbia Asia Hospital. The prosecution has got examined the Doctor as PW11 who treated PW6 at Columbia Asia Hospital. He has stated that on 1.10.2011 at 6.00 pm, injured Rajesh came to the hospital with a history of assault. He has further stated that initially the injured was treated at NIMHANS Hospital and from there referred to their hospital.

¶64

The evidence of PW1 goes to show that after the injured was treated at Ananya Hospital he was taken to one Kempegowda Hospital, but not admitted in the said hospital. The police then admitted him to Columbia Asia Hospital. The prosecution has not placed any records pertaining to the above hospitals, except the wound certificate issued by PW11, working as Medical Officer in Columbia Asia Hospital. As per Ex.P11, the injured has sustained 4 injuries as under:

¶65

Right frontal contusion with laceration of scalp.

¶66

Communicated depressed fracture of right frontal bone piercing the duramater.

¶67

Laceration over left shoulder 5 cm X 2 cm.

¶68

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶69

Multiple laceration over left middle, ring finger and left foot.

¶70

In Ex.P7, the history furnished is assault by unknown persons. As per PW11, the injured was brought to Columbia Asia Hospital on 1.10.2011 at 6.00 p.m. By that time, complaint was already lodged and a case was registered. If the evidence of PW6 is carefully perused, the appellants namely accused Nos.4, 7 and 9 were known to him. If that is so, it is not known why it is mentioned while furnishing history that the assault was by unknown persons.

¶71

As per Ex.P7, injured sustained 4 injuries, out of which, 2 injuries are on the head. PW6 has stated that accused Nos.4, 7 and 9 have assaulted him with a chopper on his head. If that is so, he would have sustained more number of injuries on his head.

¶72

In Ex.P1, it is stated that Charan along with 4-5 persons assaulted the injured. However, PW7 has stated that there were 5-6 persons along with one Charan,

¶73

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶74

whereas, PW9 has stated that about 7-8 persons got down from an autorickshaw and assaulted the injured with a chopper and knife. There is material discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses regarding the number of persons present at the time of incident.

¶75

According to prosecution, after the arrest of accused, longs, machu and knives were seized at their instance. As per PW5, the Police Constable, he apprehended accused Nos.4 and 9 on 10.10.2011. The said accused were then produced before the PSI-PW12. According to prosecution, accused led the police and panchas near a gutter in Jaimaruthinagar and produced 2 longs, 2 choppers and 4 knives (MOs.1 to 8) and the same were seized under a mahazar Ex.P3.

¶76

Prosecution has got examined the panch witnesses, PWs.3 and 4. Both the witnesses have turned hostile. PW3 has denied that accused Nos.4 and 9 have produced the weapons. PW4 has denied accused Nos.4

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶78

13 -

¶79

and 9 having produced any weapons as stated in Ex.P3.

¶80

He has denied seizure of weapons under Ex.P3.

¶81

According to prosecution, since the injured-PW6 did not give the mobile to the accused-Charan, the said accused was nurturing ill-will against him. Therefore, he along with others assaulted him. Prosecution has not placed any material to establish the motive against these appellants to commit the offence.

¶82

The evidence of PWs.6 to 9 does not inspire the confidence of the Court to hold that these appellants have attempted to take away the life of PW6 by assaulting him with the weapons (MOs.1 to 8). There are material discrepancies in their evidence. Appellants/accused-4, 7 and 9 are therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following:

¶83

14 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:39972 CRL.A No. 1404 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 1360 of 2012

¶85

ORDER

¶86

i. Both the appeals are allowed.

¶87

ii. Appellants/accused 4, 7 and 9 are acquitted of

¶88

the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC.

¶89

iii. The Judgment and Order dated 27/28.11.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court IX, Bangalore City in SC No.452/2012 is set aside.

¶90

iv. The bail bonds executed by the appellants are

¶91

cancelled.

¶92

v. Appellant No.9-Venkatesh @ Slum Ventakesh, who is said to be in custody by virtue of NBW issued by

¶93

this Court, shall be released forthwith.

¶94

Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned jail authority.

¶95

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶96

HB/TL

Venkatesh @ Slum Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh @ Slum Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

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 Arogyaswamy Vs State by Bescom

Sri Zakir Hussain Vs Union of India

Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnachand Saho Vs State of Karnataka by

Gowtham Vs the State of Karnataka