Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Rangappa Bovi

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2024CRL.A/498/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal appeals challenging an acquittal for offences under IPC Sections 354, 307, 504, 323, and 506, the High Court of Karnataka held that the trial court did not commit patent illegality or perversity. The appellate court found significant inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, unexplained delays in FIR submission, and a lack of medical evidence corroboration, leading to the dismissal o

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal judgment remains in force. Honorarium was granted to the Amicus Curiae.

State of Karnataka Vs Rangappa Bovi — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.498/2018 (A)

¶10

C/W

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1863/2017 (A)

¶12

Crl.A No.498/2018:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER KAVOOR POLICE STATION MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT …APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶16

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AND:

¶18

RANGAPPA BOVI S/O SANNA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.3/30(1), NEKKILA ASHOKANAGARA POST MANGALURU TALUK-575 001 …RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI P.NISHAN UNNI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.08.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.106/2015 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354, 504, 307, 323 AND 506 OF IPC

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶22

¶23

Crl.A.No.1863/2017:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SMT. PRAMEELA JAYANTH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O JAYANTH R/AT DURGA KRIPA NEKKILA, DEREBAIL ASHOK NAGAR POST, DEREBAIL ASHOK NAGAR POST MANGALURE-575 006 …APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI JAVEED S, ADVOCATE/AMICUS CURIAE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI RANGAPPA BOVI S/O SANNA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 3/30/1, NEKKILA ASHOK NAGARA POST MANGALURU-575 006.

¶29

THE STATE THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER KAVOOR POLICE STATION, KAVOOR MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU) ...RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI P.NISHAN UNNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [HCLSC] SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 22.08.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.106/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354, 504, 307, 323 AND 506 OF IPC.

¶32

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

( PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL )

¶38

"Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in S.C.No.106/2015 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore suffers patent illegality or perversity?" is the question involved in this case.

¶39

The respondent/accused was prosecuted in S.C.No.106/2015 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 307, 323, 506 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Kavoor police in Crime No.228/2013 of their police station.

¶40

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶41

(i) There was ill will between family of PW.1 and the accused regarding pathway situated behind Navadurgambika Temple which was constructed by PW.1. The accused had unsuccessfully fought the litigation for 14 years and on 18.11.2013, he suffered an adverse order in civil case. Due to

¶42

such enmity on 04.12.2013 at 6:30 p.m., when PW.1 was lighting the lamps in Mahakali temple adjacent to

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶45

Navadurgambika temple, the accused grappled her from hind side, inappropriately touched her breast, with an intention to commit her murder, he dragged her towards the compound wall, abusing her in foul language. He attempted to stab on her neck with the knife in nail cutter MO.1. When she tried to ward off the blow, she suffered grievous injuries on her hands. By that time PWs.2 to 5 and 7 on hearing the commotion came to the spot and rescued PW.1. Then the accused sped away from the scene of offence dropping MO.1 there only.

¶46

(ii) Regarding the incident PW.1 filed complaint as per Ex.P1 before PW.11-the constable of Kavoor police station. On the basis of the same, he registered FIR at Ex.P11 in Crime No.228/2013 and forwarded the FIR to the Court and handed over the further investigation to PW.13. PW.13 arrested the accused, visited the scene of offence and conducted the spot mahazar. As per Ex.P2 during the spot mahazar, he seized MO.1-the nail cutter. Then he recorded the statements of the witnesses, secured the wound certificate, referred the seized articles to RFSL and on completing the investigation filed the charge sheet.

¶47

During trial, the accused was on bail. The Trial Court on hearing the parties framed the charges against the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶50

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 307, 323 and 506 of IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, trial was conducted.

¶51

In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 5 were marked. After his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D10. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused holding that the evidence of the injured and other eye witnesses was not cogent and consistent and the other incriminating material also was not sufficient to hold that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Challenging the said judgment and order the State has preferred Crl.A.No.498/2018 and the complainant has preferred Crl.A.No.1863/2017.

¶52

Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP and Sri. Javeed, learned Amicus Curiae for complainant/appellant assail the impugned judgment and order on the ground that case was based on the evidence of injured eye witness and the other eye witnesses. The Trial Court based on the minor contradictions in the evidence has acquitted the accused. They

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶55

further submit that the medical evidence shows that the victim has suffered injuries and eye witnesses supported the case. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of acquittal amounts to perversity and is an outcome of patent illegality.

¶56

In support of their contention, they rely on following

¶57

judgments:

¶58

(i) Jodhan Vs. State of MP¹

¶59

(ii) Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa²

¶60

Per contra, Sri. P. Nishan Unni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/accused submits that though the evidence of injured witness and eyewitnesses has to be given due credence, such evidence shall inspire the confidence of the Court. He submits that there was delay in delivering first information report to the Court. There were major contradictions in the evidence of alleged eye witnesses and PW.1. Apparently, there was ill will between the parties and evidence of PW.1 shows that he had filed complaints against PW.1 at Exs.D6 and D7. To overcome such complaints influencing the police, PW.1 has falsely implicated the accused in the case. He submits that the Trial Court on appreciation of

¶61

1 2015 (4) Crimes 246 (SC)

¶62

2 2015 (2) Crimes 225 (SC)

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶65

the evidence has acquitted the accused and the same does not warrant interference of this Court.

¶66

Analysis

¶67

It is settled position of law that in an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, the scope of interference is very limited. Unless it is shown that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffers patent illegality or perversity, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the same only on the ground that on examination of the material it is probable to take another view. This view of ours is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh vs.

¶68

State of Haryana³ . This Court has to examine the material on record in the light of the said judgment.

¶69

The case of the prosecution was based on:

¶70

(i) the circumstance of motive

¶71

(ii) the evidence of PW.1-the injured witness and PW.7-

¶72

the mother of PW.1, the eye witnesses PWs.2 to 5.

¶73

(iii) Medical evidence.

¶74

(iv) Seizure of MO.1.

¶75

3 (2013) 14 SCC 88

¶76

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶77

(v) The RFSL evidence and the evidence of police witnesses.

¶78

Reg. Motive:

¶79

According to the prosecution there was longstanding dispute between the accused and the complainant party regarding the pathway situated behind Navadurgambika temple. The said temple was constructed by PW.1 and the accused was obstructing them from passing through the said path way. Though the accused admitted the dispute between the parties, he claims that PW.1 party were the aggressors and therefore, he had filed complaint before Kavoor police. As PW.1 and her people were influential, at their instance his complaint was not registered and only on approaching the higher authorities his complaint was registered as per Exs.D2 and D3. Thus, it becomes clear that there was long-standing enmity between the parties.

¶80

It is settled law that motive is a double edged weapon. Only based on circumstance of motive conviction cannot be placed as there is chance of both parties implicating each other due to such motive. Therefore, motive circumstance needs corroboration from the other evidence.

¶81

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶82

Reg. Evidence of injured eyewitnesses PWs.1 and 7 and eyewitnesses PWs.2 to 5:

¶83

According to the prosecution, when PW.1 was lighting lamp near the temple, on 04.12.2013, at 6:30 p.m., the accused attempted to outrage her modesty, assaulted her with nail cutter-MO.1 and attempted to commit her murder. In that process when she tried to ward off the blow, she suffered injury on her hands. It is the further case of the prosecution that when PW.7-the mother of PW.1 went to her rescue, the accused assaulted her also and caused her injuries. PWs.2 to 5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. It is no doubt true that the evidence of the injured eyewitness and the eyewitnesses have to be given due credence. But such principle comes with the caveat that their evidence shall inspire confidence of the Court.

¶84

Though the prosecution claims that PWs.1 and 7 both were injured, the evidence of PW.8 the doctor and Ex.P4 wound certificate of PW.7 shows that PW.7 had not suffered any external injuries. PW.8 in her chief examination itself states that though PW.7 was brought with the history of assault, on

¶85

her examination no injuries were found on her. It is also material to note that evidence of PWs.1 and 7 and the other

¶86

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶87

evidence on record shows that the accused, PWs.1 and 7 were known to each other for a long time. PW.8 claims to have examined them on 04.12.2013 at 10:30 p.m. and they were accompanied by one Mohan Das Suvarna. PW.1 claims that though by that time she had even filed the complaint, before PW.8 the name of the assailant was not revealed.

¶88

PW.11 claims that the complaint was filed on 04.12.2013 at 7.00 p.m. But FIR was delivered to the Court on 05.12.2013 at 10.20 a.m. For such delay, PW.11 states that as there was server problem in the police station, he could not take out copy of FIR, therefore he took print out on the next day and sent that to the Court. Whereas PW.10/carrier of FIR does not whisper anything about the glitch in the computer system or printer in the police station.

¶89

According to the accused, the complainant after due deliberations has filed the complaint, therefore there is delay in delivering FIR. The evidence of PW.11 that he forwarded the FIR to the Court on the next day is contrary to his own entry in Column No.15 of Ex.P11/FIR where it is claimed that FIR was forwarded to the Court on 04.12.2013 at 7.30 p.m. itself. Whereas PW.10 says that FIR was handed over to him on

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶92

05.12.2013. That goes to show that the evidence of PW.11 regarding delay in forwarding FIR to the Court was apparently false. Therefore it creates doubt whether FIR was really registered on 04.12.2013 at 7.00 p.m. as delay in delivering the same was not satisfactorily explained.

¶93

In para 15 of cross-examination of PW.1 it is stated that the distance between her house and Kavoor police station is 5 to 6 kms. She says that after the incident, she reached the police station around 7.00 p.m. She again says that after the incident, she got typed the complaint/Ex.P1 in Computer Centre of one Shubhakar situated near her house. At that time, she was accompanied by her mother. She further states that she was in the police station upto 9.30 p.m. Thereafter she went to the hospital. But she was not accompanied by any police. In the ordinary course, if medical examination takes place after registration of FIR, the police would have accompanied the injured. But PW.8 states that PWs.1 and 7 had come at 10.30 p.m. with one Mohan Das Suvarna with history of assault by some person.

¶94

At the cost of repetition, it has to be said that the name of assailant was not revealed before the doctor. If assault

¶95

12 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶97

was by the accused only, in the ordinary course, PWs.1 and 7 could have revealed his name before PW.8. PW.1 and other witnesses claim that the accused had assaulted on the breast of the victim. But PW.8 does not speak about any injuries on PW.1 except lacerated wound on left and right forearm. Therefore the evidence of PWs.1 and 7 was not corroborated by the medical evidence.

¶98

Though there is delay in filing the complaint and delivering the FIR to the jurisdictional Court, in Ex.P1 name of PW.5 is not found as eyewitness. Though PW.1 claims that PWs.2 to 5 were eyewitnesses to the incident, the chief examination of PWs.2 to 5 is cyclostyled copy of each other. All witnesses are allegedly eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.2 in her cross-examination states that she does not know what the police have written in her statement. The evidence of PWs.2 to 5 is to the effect that when they went to the spot, PW.1 revealed that accused suddenly came from the backside and gripped her and pressed her breast. So the evidence of these witnesses with regard to outraging the modesty is only hearsay evidence.

¶99

PW.2 in her cross-examination states that on hearing the commotion, she went to the spot where the

¶100

13 -

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶102

incident took place. She states that when she went there, seven to eight persons had gathered and 30 persons came thereafter. She again says that by the time she went there, the accused dropped nail cutter and escaped. She also states that PW.7 had not suffered any injuries. At one breath she says that they tried to catch the accused. But in the cross-examination, she says that she did not speak anything with the accused on that day. Similarly, PW.3 in her cross-examination states that she does not know the contents of her statement recorded by the police. She says that she does not know who brought the auto-rickshaw and who picked up PWs.1 and 7 to the hospital.

¶103

PW.4 in her cross-examination states that herself and PW.3 were talking to each other after 6.00 p.m. in the evening on that day and they did not sight PW.2 Rakshitha and CW.3 Poornima. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 improbabilizes the presence of each other at the scene of offence. The evidence of PWs.1 and 4 also improbabilizes the presence of each other at the scene of offence.

¶104

PW.5 though cited as eyewitness to the incident, in his cross-examination states that by the time he went to the spot, PWs.2, 3 and his sister in law and neighbour Poornima

¶105

14 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶107

were already there. That improbabilizes he witnessing the incident. He says that PW.1 went to the police station from the scene of offence. Therefore the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 7 was not cogent and consistent to probabilize their presence at the scene of offence. Therefore such evidence required corroboration regarding involvement of the accused in the alleged assault of PWs.1 and 7. Medical evidence did not corroborate the evidence of the above stated injured and other eyewitnesses. Non-revelation of name of the accused before the doctor creates greater doubt about he being assailant or the manner of injuries suffered.

¶108

Reg. Seizure of MO.1:

¶109

The Investigating Officer says that he seized MO.1 on 05.12.2013 beneath the electric pole at the scene of offence. PWs.1 to 5 and 7 say that accused dropped nail cutter and thereafter left the spot. If that is the case, PW.1 could have taken the same and produced before the police at the time of filing of the complaint. The complaint was allegedly filed on 04.12.2013. The spot mahazar said to have been conducted on 05.12.2013 between 11.00 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. Even though MO.1 was allegedly dropped in open space in public view and said to have contained blood stains complainant or

¶110

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶111

eyewitnesses did not produce that immediately before the police. To show that the same was handled by the accused, the Investigating Officer did not take finger prints of the accused. Delay in seizure of said article also was not satisfactorily explained. Therefore the circumstances of seizure of MO.1 and RFSL report that the same contained blood stains of PW.1 was in no way helpful to the prosecution.

¶112

Coupled with the above facts and circumstances, evidence of PW.1 and Exs.D1 to 10 show that even the accused had filed complaint against the complainant party and based on his complaint, FIRs/Ex.D7 and D8 were registered. It is true that subsequently ‘B’ report was filed in his complaint. However, the fact remains that there was sharp rivalry/enmity between the parties. Therefore the chance of the complainant party implicating the accused out of such enmity cannot be ruled out.

¶113

Under the facts and circumstances, the evidence of the prosecution regarding assault and suffering of injuries ought to have been cogent and consistent and ought to have dispelled all reasonable doubts. As noted above, there was no explanation for delay in registering the complaint, delivering

¶114

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:44366-DB CRL.A No.498/2018 C/w CRL.A No.1863/2017

¶115

FIR to the Court. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the injured witnesses and eyewitnesses, medical evidence did not corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 7. Therefore the trial Court was justified in holding that the charges were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Under the circumstances, the judgments relied by learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. There is no scope of interference in the matter. Hence the following:

¶116

ORDER

¶117

The appeal is dismissed.

¶118

Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri Javeed, learned Amicus Curiae and Sri Nisha Unni, learned Standing Counsel for HCLSC.

¶119

Registry shall pay honorarium of Rs.15,000/to

¶120

Sri Javeed, learned Amicus Curiae.

¶121

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶122

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶123

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶124

ABK/KSR

State of Karnataka v. Rangappa Bovi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Rangappa Bovi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.R. Nagarathna @ Kavya Vs Yogish Kutkunje Pai

Sri Pramod Vs Sujay Kamath

B M Venkatesh Vs M/S the New India Ass.Co Ltd.

Mr Rippon Shaik Alias Riyan Vs National Investigation Agency

Mr. Shaik Sadiq Ali Vs State by K.G. Halli Ps

The Divisional Controller Vs Ramesh