Chanchaiah Vs State by Mandya East Police

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2014 (C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANCHAIAH S/O LATE GARATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, KSRTC CONDUCTOR KOLLEGALA DEPOT, 4/O, 4TH CROSS, BEHIND JAYALAKSHMI TALKIES, GUTHALU, MANDYA CITY- 527116

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VIDYA SAGAR.H.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY MANDYA EAST POLICE Digitally signed REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, by SHARADAVANI HIGH COURT COMPLEX, B BANGALORE- 560001

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.2.14 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.218/12- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 OF IPC., AND ETC.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, in SC No.218/2012 dated 28.02.2014.

¶23

The parties herein are referred to as per their rank they had before the trial Court.

¶24

The brief facts leading to the filing of this

¶25

appeal are that PSI, Mandya East Police Station has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC in CC.No.952/2012. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 06.02.2012 at about 06.00 p.m., CW-01 Manjula w/o Jayaramu, who resided at the house of 4^th cross behind Jayalakshmi talkies, Guthalu, Mandya city, had gone to the house of the accused situated in front of her house and

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

asked the accused to return the gold chain destroyed by his daughter, who is aged 4 years. At that juncture, the accused became angry and abused CW1-Manjula in Kannada as "Loafer Munde" and also expressed that he will take away her life and thereafter took the wooden repees. In the meanwhile, CW-01 proceeded back to her house. The accused followed her and gave her a blow to the left side of the head, causing bleeding injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged commission of offence.

¶29

After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in CC No.952/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On hearing the charges, the trial court has framed the charges for the alleged commission of offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused; having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

To prove the guilt of the accused, the

¶33

prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as PW1 to PW9, and 14 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to 14. 5 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. On the closure of the prosecution side evidence, a statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

¶34

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and passed a sentence for a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

¶36

and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is illegal and is not sustainable under

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

law. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The trial judge has failed to note that the prosecution has not at all examined the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned trial judge, only on the basis of presumption and assumption, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused, which is not sustainable under law.

¶40

The PW9 - doctor has deposed in his evidence that the injuries can be caused when the person had fall while walking on road. In the instant case, the weapon that was used is not proved. From the very facts itself, it is very clear that fact of throwing the wooden repees by the accused is not at all established.

¶41

CW1 - Manjula died about 3 months back, and it is not the case of the prosecution that she died on account of injuries. PW1- Harish and PW2 - Chethana are the eyewitnesses. The trial Court has not properly

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

appreciated the materials on record in accordance with law and facts and sought to allow this appeal.

¶45

The Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.B.Lakshman submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record in accordance with law and facts and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶46

Having heard the arguments on both sides and

¶47

on perusal of materials on record, the following points would arise for my consideration.

¶48

i) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC?

¶49

ii) What order?

¶50

My answers to the above points are as under:

¶51

Point No. i: In the negative,

¶52

Point No. ii: As per the final order

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Regarding Point No.1:

¶56

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.02.2012 at about 06.00 p.m., CW-01 Manjula w/o Jayaramu who resided at the house of 4^th cross behind Jayalakshmi talkies, Guthalu, Mandya city, had gone to the house of the accused situated in front of her house and asked the accused to return the gold chain destroyed by his daughter. At that juncture, the accused became angry and abused CW1-Manjula in Kannada as "Loafer Munde" and expressing that he will take away her life, took the wooden repees. In the meanwhile, CW-01 left to her house. The accused followed her and gave her a blow to the left side of the head, causing bleeding injuries. Thus accused has committed the offence. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 9 witnesses were examined before the trial Court and 14 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. In the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has

¶57

cited in all 14 witnesses. Among them, CW1 is Manjula,

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

who is the complainant and injured. Before recording her evidence, she was reported to be dead. Hence, CW1Manjula is not examined.

¶62

This case arose out of the complaint filed by

¶63

CW.1-Manjula as per Ex.P.4, in which it is stated as under:

¶64

"£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É FUÉÎ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄä JzÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ZÀÄAZÀAiÀÄågÀªÀgÀ 4 ªÀµÀðzÀ ªÀÄUÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è mÉÃ§¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É EnÖzÀÝ a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ «ZÀgÀzÀ°è a£ÀßzÀ ZÉÊ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ ZÀÄAZÀAiÀÄå¤UÉ AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁr ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. EzÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ PÉÆnÖgÀ°® è. F ¢£À ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 6.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ZÀÄAZÀAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV ZÀÄAZÀAiÀÄå¤UÉ ZÉÊ£À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀUÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛÃAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ¼À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ZÀÄAZÀAiÀÄå£ÀÄ £À£Àß K£ÀÄ PÀ¼Àî CAvÀ w½zÀÄPÉÆAr¢ÝAiÀiÁ ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ ¤Ã£ÀÄ §zÀÄQzÀÝgÉ vÁ£É £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ ZÉÊÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ F ¢£À ¤£Àß£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É £ÉÆÃqÀÄ JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢ ©¢ÝzÀÝ ªÀÄgÀzÀ jÃ¥Àgï ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß CnÖ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¯ÉUÉ eÉÆÃgÁV jÃ¥Àgï ¥ÀnÖ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. PÀÆqÀ¯É CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ d£ÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ dUÀ¼À ©r¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è PÀÄ¹zÀÄ ©¢ÝzÉÝ£ÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è C¯Éè EzÀÝ ¹zÀÝ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ ºÀjÃ±,À gÁªÀÄ°AUÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ZÉÃvÀ£ïgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ aQvÉì PÉÆr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ZÀÄAZÀAiÀÄå£ÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É jÃ¥Àgï ¥ÀnÖ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÉÆ¯ÉUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

¶65

On 06.06.2012, the Police have registered the

¶66

case in Crime No.143/2012 against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and submitted the FIR to

¶67

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the Court on 07.06.2012 at 07.10 a.m. The complainantCW.1 died prior to recording her evidence. The material witnesses, PW.2 and PW.3 said to be the eyewitnesses, have deposed in their evidence that on 06.06.2012 at about 06.00 p.m., while PW.1 and PW.2 were proceeding towards the house of CW.1, they saw CW.1-Manjula was returning to her house from the house of the accused, at that time, the accused who was holding M.O.No.1-wooden repees-patti, caused injury to the head of CW.1-Manjula. As a result, CW.1-Manjula fell on the ground. PW.1 and PW.2 tried to catch hold of the accused. Then the accused went inside his house by closing the main door. CW.1Manjula sustained bleeding injuries and the nightgown worn by her was stained with her blood and his blood. Then PW.1 and PW.2 shifted the injured to the District Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, they came to know the fact that a few days prior to the date of incident, galata took place between the accused and CW.1-Manjula

¶70

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

regarding the gold chain taken by the daughter of the accused.

¶73

PW.3 - Jayaramu is the husband of CW.1Manjula and has deposed in his evidence that he came to know about the galata between the accused and CW.1Manjula. Neighbours have informed him that the accused assaulted his wife with wooden repees-patti. He has also deposed that as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P.2.

¶74

PW.4 - Thimmegowda has deposed in his evidence that prior to the alleged incident, the daughter of the accused had taken the gold chain from the house of the complainant-CW.1. In this regard, the galata took place between the accused and the complainant-CW.1. Then he advised the accused to hand over the gold chain to the complainant-CW.1. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused had assaulted CW.1-Manjula.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

PW.5 - Ramesha has deposed in his evidence as

¶79

to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P.1 and seizure of M.O.No.1.

¶80

PW.6 - Puttalingegowda has deposed in his evidence as to the mahazar conducted by the Police as per Ex.P.2.

¶81

PW.7 - Manjunatha, who is Lab Technician, has deposed in his evidence that he has examined the blood group of CW.1-Manjula and he has certified the blood group of CW.1-Manjula was O+^ve as per Ex.P.3.

¶82

PW.8 - M.Manjunath, who is a P.S.I., has

¶83

deposed as to the investigation conducted by him.

¶84

PW.9 - Dr. Vijay has deposed in his evidence as to the treatment extended to the injured and found the injuries as shown in Ex.P.14-Wound Certificate.

¶85

On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that soon after this alleged

¶86

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

incident, the injured CW.1-Manjula admitted to the hospital on 06.06.2012 at 08.10 p.m. In Ex.P.14-Wound Certificate, it is mentioned that the injured CW.1-Manjula came to the hospital along with his son Harisha with history of assault by unknown person with stick (zÉÆuÉÚ) and further, it reveals that injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P.14-Wound Certificate also reveals that the date of admission is 06.06.2012 and date of discharge is 10.06.2012.

¶89

The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the complainant on 06.06.2012 between 09.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. in the District Hospital, Mandya so as to ascertain whether the complainant was in a fit condition to give a statement on 06.06.2012 at 09.30 p.m. has not been disclosed by the prosecution. The Medical Officer, who has examined the injured has not certified as to injured was in a fit condition to give a statement or not. But, the wound certificate reveals that the injured was

¶90

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

admitted to the hospital with a history of assault by an unknown person.

¶93

PW.9 - Dr. Vijay, who has examined the injured, has not whispered anything against the accused. The Investigating Officer has not given any explanation as to why the Medical Officer has shown in the wound certificate that the injured came with a history of assault by an unknown person. At the time of admission of the injured CW.1-Manjula, PW.1-Harisha, who is the son of CW.1-Manjula, was present. The said Harisha has also not disclosed the name of the accused before the Medical Officer. If the accused had really assaulted the complainant with wooden repees-patti as alleged by the prosecution, the complainant or her son PW.1-Harisha would have disclosed the name of the accused before the Medical Officer. Though the Police have recorded the statement of the complainant on 06.06.2012 between 09.30 p.m. and 10.10 p.m., they have submitted the FIR

¶94

to the Court on 07.06.2012 at 07.10 a.m. The delay in

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:7074 CRL.A No. 212 of 2014

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

dispatching the FIR to the Court has not been explained by the prosecution. Though the complainant had been admitted to the hospital for four days, the Investigating Officer has not collected the case sheet maintained by the concerned hospital. The Investigating Officer has not explained anything as to the non-production of the material evidence, i.e., case sheet pertaining to the injured.

¶99

In the absence of material evidence, i.e., case sheet pertaining to the injured, the sole interested testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 cannot be believed. Since the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is not consistent with the contents of Ex.P.14 and the evidence of PW9, the prosecution has failed to place cogent, convincing, corroborative, clinching trustworthy evidence before the Court to convict the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC, which is

¶100