Allowed

Ramesh S/O Tippanna Channur v. the State of Karnataka

Where the only supporting witnesses – close relatives and claimed eyewitnesses

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024CRL.A/200011/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for outraging modesty, assault, abuse and a SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act offence. Witness discrepancies, hostile relatives and an unexplained mahazar discrepancy undermined the victim's evidence; the High Court acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Trial conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all four charged offences; bail bond cancelled.

Ramesh S/O Tippanna Channur Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200011 OF 2018

¶9

[374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS]

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

RAMESH S/O TIPPANNA CHANNUR AGE:20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O NAGARAL VILLAGE, TQ. SHURPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI – 585201.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN L MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHORAPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT YADGIR – 585201. REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED: 18.12.2017 AND SENTENCE DATED: 18.12.2017 IN SPL.CASE NO.45/2015 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL. COURT, YADAGIRI, BY CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶22

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 354(A)(1), 323, 504 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (P.A.) ACT – 1989 AND THEREBY SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR TWO YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- IN-DEFAULT S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 354(A)(1) OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR THE ONE MONTH AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/- IN-DEFAULT S.I FOR (15) DAYS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323 OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- INDEFAULT S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504 OF IPC, AND FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR THREE YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.20,000/- IN-DEFAULT S.I. FOR ONE YEAR OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (P.A.) ACT, 1989.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadagiri in

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶28

Special Case No.45/2015 is assailed in this appeal by the accused.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶30

Charges were framed against the accused/ appellant for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(A)(1), 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant/PW-1 was proceeding towards the canal in Nagaral village to wash the clothes, the accused held her hands, abused her as ‘le holeya sule’ and called her to sleep with him and when she resisted, he dragged her by holding her tuft, assaulted on her back with his hands and thereby committed the charged offences.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶34

In order to establish the charges leveled,

¶35

prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 12 and got marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-9 and M.O.-1 – broken bangle pieces.

¶36

The defence of the accused was one of total

¶37

denial, however, he did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.

¶38

Appreciating the oral and documentary

¶39

evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences charged against him and passed sentence as under:

¶40

For the offence punishable under Section 354(A) (1) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶41

For the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶44

month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

¶45

For the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶46

For the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant has

¶48

vehemently contended that the Trial Court, on an erroneous consideration of the evidence and material on record, has passed the impugned judgment, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He contended that except the complainant, other material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶50

complainant. Further, the seizure of M.O.-1 – broken bangle pieces from the spot is doubtful and there is discrepancy. Further contended that there is delay in lodging the complaint. He therefore, contended that the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the accused are not in accordance with law and accordingly sought to allow the appeal and acquit the accused.

¶51

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that there is no delay in lodging the complaint and even otherwise the complainant has explained in the complaint regarding the delay. Further, the evidence of PW-1, being the victim in this case, is trustworthy and there are no serious infirmities elicited in her crossexamination so as to disbelieve the incident. She contended that M.O.-1 – broken bangle pieces were recovered from the spot in the presence of panchas and one of the panch witnesses i.e., PW-3 has supported the case of prosecution. She has therefore, contended that

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶53

the learned Sessions Judge, having appreciated the evidence and material on record in proper perspective, has rightly held the accused guilty of the charges leveled against him. She has accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

The incident is alleged to have taken place on 09.06.2015. According to the prosecution, the complainant/victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and on the date of incident, at about 11. a.m., she was proceeding towards the canal in her village to wash the clothes and at that time the accused held her hands, abused her as ‘le holeya sule’ and called her to sleep with him and when she opposed, dragged her by holding her tuft and assaulted on her back.

¶55

The prosecution has got examined the Tahasildar, Shorapur as PW-9, who issued Ex.P7 to show

¶56

that the complainant is a member of scheduled caste and accused belong to Kuruba community. PW.9 has not been cross-examined by the defence. Hence, there is no serious

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶59

dispute with regard to the caste of the complainant and the accused.

¶60

The complaint came to be lodged on

¶61

09.06.2015 at about 8:10 PM. In the complaint which is marked as Ex.P1, it is stated that when the complainant screamed, her sister-in-law by name Lakshmi came to the spot and on seeing her, accused fled away. Thereafter, the complainant informed the matter to her parents and husband and after discussing with them, lodged the complaint.

¶62

The FIR was received by the learned Magistrate, as per the endorsement on Ex.P1, at about 8:00 AM on 10.06.2015. The distance from the place of incident to the Police Station is about 20 kms. Hence, delay if any in lodging the complaint or sending the FIR to the jurisdictional Court itself is not a ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

¶63

As per Ex.P1, accused on seeing the

¶64

complainant’s sister-in-law by name Lakshmi approaching,

¶65

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶67

ran away from the spot. Thereafter, complainant went and informed the matter to her parents and her husband and after discussing with them, lodged the complaint –Ex.P1.

¶68

Complainant’s sister-in-law, Lakshmi is

¶69

examined as PW.7, complainant’s mother is examined as PW.4 and her husband is examined as PW.6. Even though they are her close relatives, they have not supported the case of prosecution. On the other hand, they have completely denied the case of prosecution and complainant having informed them about the incident. The evidence of PWs.4, 6 and 7 do not lend any corroboration to the evidence of complainant. Similarly, PWs.5 and 8, who are said to be the eyewitnesses, have turned hostile and their evidence is of no use to the prosecution.

¶70

According to prosecution, PWs.5 and 8 along with PW.1 had gone near the canal to wash clothes and they witnessed the incident. Their names do not find a place in the FIR. Further, complainant has nowhere stated that she went to wash clothes along with PWs.5 and 8.

¶71

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶72

The only evidence which remains is the

¶73

testimony of the complainant/victim. It is well settled that evidence of the victim of a crime if inspires confidence of the Court, appears to be trustworthy and believable, then no corroboration is required. However, a careful scrutiny of the evidence has to be undertaken.

¶74

In Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that on 09.06.2015 at about 11:00 AM, she had gone near the canal in her village to wash the clothes and while washing clothes, the accused came and held her hands, abused her etc. Contrary to the same, in her evidence she has stated that while she was proceeding towards the canal to wash the clothes, the incident has occurred. She has not stated that the incident has occurred while she was washing the clothes. According to the prosecution, at the time of incident the bangles which the complainant was wearing broke into pieces and the said bangle pieces – MO.1 was seized from the spot under a mahazar – Ex.P2. In Ex.P1, nowhere it is stated that the complainant was wearing

¶75

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶76

bangles or that the bangles were broken and bangle pieces fell near the spot. For the first time before the Court, in her evidence, the complainant/PW.1 has stated that when the accused dragged holding her hands, the green bangles she was wearing broke into pieces.

¶77

The bangle pieces-MO.1 were recovered while

¶78

preparing the spot mahazar – Ex.P2. The said mahazar was drawn on 10.06.2015 between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. Out of the two panch witnesses namely PWs.2 and 3, PW.2 has turned hostile. PW.3 has stated that the complainant showed the spot and the Police seized bangle pieces under a mahazar –Ex.P2.

¶79

The learned counsel for appellant has contended that PW.3 is none other than the father-in-law of the complainant and he has admitted in the crossexamination that in the Grama Panchayat Elections, accused and the complainant worked for different political parties.

¶80

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶81

It is relevant to see that in Ex.P2 it is mentioned that the material objects were seized on 09.06.2015, whereas the mahazar was drawn on the next day at about 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM. The said material discrepancy is not at all explained by the prosecution.

¶82

In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited by the defence that as per the instructions of her relative by name Durgappa, she lodged the complaint and the elder brother of said Durgappa is the head of their community and leader of a political party. She has admitted that they were supporting a particular political

¶83

party, whereas the accused and his father were supporting another party. She has admitted that there was political rivalry between Durgappa and the accused.

¶84

The evidence of PW.1 suffers from discrepancies, infirmities and Embellishments. Her

¶85

evidence is not trustworthy to convict the accused for the charged offences. Her evidence is not corroborated by any

¶86

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶87

other independent witnesses. Her close relatives namely, her sister-in-law, mother and husband have not supported the prosecution case. They have denied the incident and PW.1 having informed them about the incident. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge that there are no major discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 are not proper. The evidence and material on record are not sufficient to convict the accused for the charged offence. Appeal therefore succeeds. Accordingly, the following:

¶88

ORDER

¶89

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶90

(ii) The judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadgiri in Special Case No.45/2015 is hereby set aside.

¶91

(iii) The appellant / accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 323,

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8145 CRL.A No. 200011 of 2018

¶94

354(A)(1), 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989.

¶95

(iv) His bail bond stands cancelled.

¶96

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶97

SWK/HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: PS

Ramesh S/O Tippanna Channur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Tippanna Channur v. the 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

Fakirayya and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadev Sahukar Byragonda Vs State of Karnataka and Anr.

Soheb Hasan and Ors. Vs Dr MD Azgar Chulbul and Ors.

Abdul Nizam Vs the State of Karnataka

Nandakumar Vs Nagaraj

Prerana Kolhar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.