Puttasiddamma @ Puttasiddi vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6231 Kant

                              1
                                           R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2014

BETWEEN:
1.  Puttasiddamma @ Puttasiddi
    W/o. Shivalingaiah
    Aged about 31 years

2.     Samandaiah
       S/o. Late Dadeeraiah
       Aged about 42 years

       Both are residents of
       Talagavadi Village
       Kirugavalu Hobli
       Malavalli Taluk - 571401.
                                     ...Appellants

(By Sri. Kemparaju - Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka
By Malavalli Rural Police Station
Mandya
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex
Bangalore - 560 001.
                                    ...Respondent
(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K - HCGP)
                             2


     This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the judgment dated
28.05.2014, passed by I-Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.50/2013 and acquit the
appellants.

      This criminal appeal coming on for hearing
through video conference this day, the court delivered
the following:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial

Court in S.C.No.50/2013 dated 28.05.2014 convicting

the accused Nos.1 and 2 / appellants herein, for

offences punishable under Sections 324 and 342 read

with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. Further, Accused

Nos.1 and 2 have been sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months for the offences

punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC

and they have been further sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for one

month for the offences punishable under Section 342

read with Section 34 IPC. This appeal is filed by the

appellants seeking for consideration of the grounds

urged and consequently to set aside the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial

Court and further seeking acquittal of the accused for

the aforesaid offences, for the grounds urged therein.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Kemparaju for

appellant and so also the learned HCGP for the State.

Perused the judgment of conviction rendered by the

Trial Court in S.C.No.50/2013 dated 28.05.2014 and so

also the evidence of PW-1 to PW-11 inclusive of the

documents at Exhibits P1 to P7 and material objects at

MO-1 to MO-3.

3. Factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It transpires from the case of the prosecution that

on 14.05.2012 at around 8.30 a.m. in Talagawadi

village the complainant was said to be proceeding in

front of the house of Accused No.1 namely

Puttasiddamma. Due to an earlier enmity, Accused

Nos.1 and 2 had joined together and Accused No.1 /

Puttasiddamma had caught hold of the shirt collar of

the complainant Sathisha and dragged him to her house

and thus wrongfully restrained him. In the meanwhile,

Accused No.2 / Samandaiah is alleged to have

assaulted the complainant on his head with means of a

bamboo club. Accused No.1 had then brought a plastic

rope and had tied the same to his body, with an

intention to cause his death. Both Accused Nos.1 and 2

had also told that he has to die in that position itself.

But thereafter, on seeing CWs 2 to 5 who had come to

rescue the complainant, Accused Nos.1 and 2 had

untied the complainant Sathisha. However, Accused

Nos.1 and 2 had wrongfully restrained PW-1 Sathisha

and also had assaulted him with means of a bamboo

club, as a result causing simple injuries. In pursuance

of the act of the accused, on filing of a complaint by the

complainant, criminal law was set into motion by

recording an FIR as per Exhibit P7 for offences under

Sections 324 and 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC,

1860. Subsequent to registration of the crime by

recording an FIR, criminal law was set into motion and

thereafter the I.O. has taken up the case for

investigation and conducted thorough investigation and

laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the

Committal Court whereby the Committal Court had

passed an order under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. by

following the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of the

Cr.P.C. Subsequent to committing the case for trial to

the Sessions Court, the case in S.C.No.50/2013 has

been assigned whereby the charges were framed against

the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341

read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 and so also

charges were framed for offences punishable under

Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860.

Alternatively, facing of trial for charges framed against

them under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The accused did not plead guilty but claims to be tried.

Accordingly, plea of the accused was recorded.

Subsequent to framing of charges, the prosecution had

let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to

PW-11 and so also got marked Exhibits P1 to P7

inclusive of MO-1 to MO-3. Subsequent to closure of

the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused

was subjected to examination as contemplated under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for enabling the accused to

respond to the incriminating statements appearing

against him, whereby the accused had declined the

truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far.

Subsequently the accused were called upon to adduce

any defence evidence as contemplated under Section

233 Cr.P.C. But no defence evidence was adduced.

Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the

prosecution, the Trial Court had heard the arguments

advanced by the Public Prosecutor and so also the

defence counsel and having been convinced with the

evidence let in by the prosecution inclusive of getting

marked several documents, held conviction against the

accused for offences punishable under Sections 324 and

342 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 and

sentenced them to pay fine for the offences as aforesaid.

It is this judgment which is under challenge in this

appeal by urging various grounds, seeking intervention.

4. Learned counsel for appellants / Accused Nos.1

and 2 has stoutly addressed his arguments by referring

to the evidence of PW-1 Sathisha who is a gravamen of

the incident and also alleging that he has been inflicted

with injuries by accused persons, as contended by the

prosecution. But though criminal law was set into

motion on receipt of a complaint at Exhibit P1 which

bears the signature of the complainant / PW-1, but this

PW-1 / Satisha has turned hostile in respect of the

allegations made against the accused at Exhibit P1.

Hence, his evidence on the part of the prosecution runs

contrary to the evidence of PW-2 / Kumara, PW-3 /

Jagadeesha who are eye-witnesses relating to the

incident narrated by PW-1 who is a gravamen of the

incident who filed the complaint at Exhibit P1.

5. Exhibit P4 is the Wound Certificate which bears

the signature of the Doctor at Exhibit P4(a). PW-5 is the

Doctor who issued Opinion report at Exhibit P5 which

bears the signature at Exhibit P5(a). PW-5 was also

subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution

who issued the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P4 and

Opinion Report at Exhibit P5. The Doctor's evidence

runs contrary to the evidence of PW-1 / Sathisha and

further contradictory to the evidence of PW-2 / Kumara

and PW-3 / Jagadeesha, who are said to be the eye-

witnesses on the part of the prosecution and who have

given statements before the Investigating Authority

during the course of investigation. But in the aforesaid

case, PW-6 / Annegowda, is a Head Constable and PW-

7 / M.J. Lokesh who is an I.O. in part and PW-8 / B.

Puttaswami is also an I.O. in part and PW-9 /

Mahadevaiah K.M. is a Head Constable, PW-11 /

Subbaiah is an I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against

the accused are the official witnesses. In all, three

Investigating Officers have investigated the case in part.

But their evidence on the part of the prosecution runs

contrary to the evidence of PW-1 / Sathisha who filed

the complaint at Exhibit P1 which was received by the

Rural Police, Malavalli and based upon the complaint

made by PW-1 injured, criminal law was set into

motion. Whereas in the examination-in-chief on the

part of the prosecution, PW-1 / Sathisha has clearly

stated that he has not given any statement before the

Rural P.S., Malavalli and further, he has specifically

admitted that he was unable to spell out the exact date

and month of the alleged incident narrated at Exhibit

P1. Therefore, the incident narrated in his complaint at

Exhibit P1 and also fulcrum of the mahazar drawn by

the I.O., creates some sort of doubt about the theory put

forth by the prosecution as to whether the incident had

taken place as alleged in his complaint at Exhibit P1. If

really the incident had taken place, he would have

stated before the Trial Court that the accused had tied

the injured with a plastic rope which is marked as MO-

2. On that ground alone, it requires for intervention of

the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the

Trial Court. If not, the accused who are the gravamen

of the accusation would be the sufferer and so also it

would result in a miscarriage of justice.

6. The second limb of arguments advanced is that

PW-1 / Satisha who is the injured has given a go-by to

the version of his complaint at Exhibit P1 and even

though this witness has been subjected to cross-

examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited by

the prosecution to believe his story or the allegation at

his complaint at Exhibit P1 against Accused No.1 who is

alleged to have dragged him by holding his shirt collar

to her house and in the meanwhile, Accused No.2 who

is a relative of Accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted

by MO-2 bamboo club by choosing his head, as a result

causing some bleeding injuries. Accused No.1 is alleged

to have tied the body of PW-1 / Satisha with means of

MO-1 plastic rope and tied him to the pole with an

intention to cause his death. But he has not at all spell

out all these stories narrated in his complaint at Exhibit

P1 and hence, he has given a go-by to the version of his

complaint at Exhibit P1 and the narration of the

incident at Exhibit P3 of the mahazar and even as

regards infliction of injuries over his person which is

indicated at Exhibit P4. Even he has given a go-by as

regards the Opinion Report issued by the Doctor at

Exhibit P5 relating to the injuries inflicted over his

person. In spite of the same, the Trial Court has failed

to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper

perspective and has erroneously come to the conclusion

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt.

7. PW-1 who is an injured and also being the

author of the complaint at Exhibit P1, has admitted in

his cross-examination that he was in the habit of

consuming alcohol, that is arrack. But this accused

who was frequently visiting his in-laws house to see his

son, was in the habit of eve-teasing Accused No.1 /

Puttasiddamma. The complainant was in the habit of

quarrelling with his wife Lakshmi, who died six years

prior to the incident. When his wife was alive, he was

always quarrelling with her and Accused No.2 /

Samandaiah being a neighbour, used to advise him not

to quarrel with his wife or assault her. Therefore, an

enmity had developed between Accused No.2 and PW-1

/ Sathisha and PW-1 had filed a complaint as a result of

which criminal law was set into motion by roping that

accused as well as Puttasiddamma. Accused No.2 is

said to have convened a Panchayath relating to the

incident of eve-teasing Accused No.1 / Puttasiddamma

and there was also some quarrel in that regard. It is

due to these reasons that Sathisha is said to have filed

a false complaint against the accused persons roping

them as accused. The complaint has been filed with

due deliberation and discussion before implicating those

appellants / accused before the Trial Court. But the

Trial Court has failed to appreciate the same relating to

previous enmity which was prevailing between Accused

No.2 / Samandaiah and PW-1 / Sathisha. Therefore, in

this appeal, it requires for re-appreciation of the

evidence available on record. If not, the accused /

appellants herein, would be the sufferer.

8. PW-2 and PW-3 are eye-witnesses relating to

the incident narrated in the complaint at Exhibit P1.

Even the mahazar was drawn by the Investigating

Agency on 14.05.2012 in between 1.30 p.m. to 2.30

p.m. but there was some contradiction. When PW-3

was subjected to examination on the part of the

prosecution, he had stated that he went along with PW-

2 / Kumara to the alleged scene of crime at around 7.00

a.m. But in his cross-examination, he has clearly

admitted that at the time of the alleged incident, he was

present near at M.M. Medical Store and it was of 500 ft.

distance to the alleged scene of crime. But PW-2 /

Kumara gave a complaint to the police relating to PW-1

/ Satisha having been tied by accused persons. PW-2

has stated in his evidence that at the time of the alleged

incident, there were in all 20 to 30 persons being public

who had gathered in the village. But respondent /

police have not taken any statement from them relating

to the incident which is alleged to have occurred on PW-

1 / Satisha and there are no independent witnesses

other than the relatives of PW-1. But, the evidence of

PW-2 and PW-3 requires to be re-appreciated in this

appeal. If not, the accused who is a gravamen of the

accusation would be the sufferer and more so, there

shall be some miscarriage of justice. But PW-3 even

though he has been subjected to examination, he had

not informed of the incident to the Malavalli Rural P.S.

It is very much clear that the said evidence has not been

appreciated by the Trial Court but erroneously come to

the conclusion holding that the prosecution has proved

the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. PW-5 / Dr. Vineetha, had subjected to

examination PW-1 / Sathisha and issued the Wound

Certificate at Exhibit P4 and also Opinion Report at

Exhibit P5. But in her evidence, she has stated that the

injuries inflicted over PW-1 were simple in nature and

further that the injured PW-1 Sathisha was brought to

her by PW-2 / Kumara and PW-3 / Jagadeesha. On the

contrary, the said Kumara / PW-2 and Jagadeesha /

PW-3, in their evidence on the part of the prosecution,

have stated that the police had admitted the injured to

the hospital. Hence, contradiction arises in between the

statements of PW-2 and PW-3 who are independent

witnesses and more so, the evidence of PW-5 / Doctor

who had subjected the injured to examination and

issued the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P4 and so also

the Opinion Report at Exhibit P5. PW-5 being the

Doctor even though was subjected to examination and

cross-examination, during the course of cross-

examination, she has admitted that if a person falls

down and comes into contact with an hard object,

injuries would be inflicted as indicated in the Wound

Certificate. Even if the person fell down from a tree, the

injuries inflicted on the head part would also have been

caused. These are all the important evidence on the

part of the prosecution which has not been appreciated

by the Trial Court in a proper perspective.

10. Further, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3

runs contrary to the evidence of PW-6 and PW-9 being

official witnesses. PW-6 and PW-9 have stated in their

evidence that they went to the alleged scene of crime on

the instruction given by the PSI of Malavalli Rural P.S.

at around 10.45 a.m. But PW-2 and PW-3 have stated

in their evidence that the police had come to the alleged

scene of crime at around 7.00 a.m. Therefore, there are

some contradictions in the evidence of PW-6 and PW-9

and there are clouds of doubt in the theory put forth by

the prosecution. Despite of it, the Trial Court has given

more credence to the official witnesses and so also to

the evidence of PW-1 / Sathisha, who has given a go-by

to incident narrated in his complaint at Exhibit P1

itself. The Trial Court has lost sight of these

inconsistencies and has not appreciated the evidence on

record in a proper perspective. Therefore, under this

appeal, it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence

inclusive of the material documents which have been

got marked on the part of the prosecution, such as the

complaint at Exhibit P1, the mahazar at Exhibit P3 and

the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P4 and so also the

evidence of PW-6 and PW-9 who are the official

witnesses. All their evidence run contrary to the

evidence of PW-1 / Sathisha. On all these premise,

learned counsel for appellants seeks for intervention by

considering the grounds urged therein and

consequently to set aside the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in

S.C.No.50/2013 and thereby acquit the appellants for

offences under Sections 324 and 342 read with Section

34 of the IPC, 1860.

11. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State

has taken me through the evidence of PW-1 / Sathisha

who is the injured. It is contended that though there

are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1 and so also

the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who are eye-witnesses

on the part of the prosecution, and merely because PW-

1 / Sathisha did not support the case of the prosecution

absolutely, it cannot be said that the entire case of the

prosecution should be brushed aside. The incident had

taken place on 14.05.2012 at around 8.30 a.m. at

Talagawadi village in front of the house of Accused No.1

Puttasiddamma and Accused No.2 / Samandaiah is

none other than the relative of Accused No.1. Accused

No.1 Puttasiddamma had caught hold of the shirt collar

of PW-1 / Sathisha and had dragged him nearby her

house and thereby Accused No.2 being her relative, had

assaulted him by means of a bamboo club on his head.

As a result of that, he had sustained with injuries and

had taken treatment with the Doctor examined as PW-5,

who issued the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P4 and also

Opinion Report at Exhibit P5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had

inflicted injuries over PW-1 / Sathisha, which is clearly

indicated at Exhibit P4 of the Wound Certificate and

more so, the accused had wrongfully confined him by

tying him by means of MO-1 / plastic rope.

12. The prosecution has subjected to examination

PW-1 Sathisha who is the injured. In support of the

case, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined and PW-5 Doctor

had subjected PW-1 to examination and issued Wound

Certification and Opinion report. So also, the evidence

of PW-7 / M.J. Lokesh, PW-8 / B. Puttaswami and PW-

11 / Subbaiah, the I.O. who laid the charge-sheet

against the accused and conducted spot mahazar at

Exhibit P3 and secured the Wound Certificate at Exhibit

P4 and the Opinion Report at Exhibit P5. But the

accused is alleged to have tied PW-1 / Sathisha with

means of MO-1 / plastic rope and also assaulted with

bamboo club marked at MO-2. As a result of the

assault made on Sathisha, it had caused bleeding

injuries. The blood had come into contact with his

shirt, which is marked as MO-3. These are the evidence

let in by the prosecution and nothing worthwhile has

been elicited even though these witnesses were

subjected to cross-examination. PW-2 and PW-3 who

are the eye-witnesses on the part of the prosecution

have stated the history of the incident and also infliction

of injuries over PW-1 / Sathisha, whereby Accused No.1

had dragged him by holding his shirt collar and

Accused No.2 being her relative, had assaulted PW-1

with means of MO-2 / bamboo club and also had tied

him to the pole in front of the house of Accused Nos.1

and 2 and had assaulted him on his head, as a result of

which he had gone semiconscious. Thereafter, the said

PW-1 had been untied by rescuing him by the Malavalli

police and sent him to hospital at around 11 to 12 noon

and thereby recorded the statement of the injured and

also received the complaint at Exhibit P1, wherein the

accused had caused the injuries inflicted on his person

and also wrongfully confined him, which has been

established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable

doubt. Therefore, the learned HCGP contends that it

does not arise to call for interference, as there are no

warranting circumstances arising for interference. On

all these premise, learned HCGP for the State seeks for

dismissal of this appeal as being devoid of merits.

13. In the context of contentions advanced by

learned counsel for appellants and counter contentions

made by the learned HCGP for the State relating to

infliction of injuries over the person of PW-1 / Sathisha

which is indicated at Exhibit P4 of the Wound

Certificate, it is required to examine the Wound

Certificate issued by PW-4 Doctor who had given

treatment to him and noticed some injuries inflicted

over his person such as,

1) A lacerated wound on the occipital region of 4

cms in length 2 cms in breadth, wedge shaped, bleeding

present.

2) A rope mark on the back below the right

scapula upto the vertebral column 10 x 1 cm.

The Doctor who had given the opinion report has

opined that the above injuries are simple in nature, age

of the wound within 24 hours. Accordingly, issued the

Wound Certificate on 13.06.2012 in respect of Mr.

Satish S/o. H. Dasaiah with the history of assault by

Samandaiah and Puttasiddamma as on 14.05.2012 at

around 8.00 a.m. He was tied with a rope around his

neck and back and legs, but PW.1-injured did not

support the prosecution theory absolutely as narrated

in his complaint at Exhibit P1.

14. PW-5 has been subjected to examination on

the part of the prosecution and issued the Wound

Certificate at Exhibit P4 opining that Injuries 1 and 2

were simple in nature. Subsequent to giving treatment

to the injured, the Doctor had issued Opinion Report at

Exhibit P5. This opinion report had been issued based

upon the requisition by the PSI of Rural P.S., Malavalli.

Exhibit P6 is the FSL report issued by the Chemical

Examiner of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,

Mysuru. Exhibit P6 of the FSL report states that the

articles pertaining to the case in Cr.No.75/2012 of

Malavalli Rural P.S., for offences under Sections 308,

342 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 were

subjected to chemical examination. The description of

the articles are, 1) one Donne (club), 2) Rope pieces - 2

in number 3) One shirt. The exhibits for serology were,

4) Cuttings from rope pieces 5) Cuttings from shirt,

which are contrary to the evidence of PW.1-injured and

the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3.

15. The report in this regard has been issued by

the Chemical Examiner after subjecting to examination

relating to the blood stain on the articles. Presence of

blood was detected in Item Nos.2 and 3 but presence of

blood was not detected in Item No.1. But Item Nos.2

and 3 were stained with human blood. As regards

Serology report, cuttings and scrapings of the blood

stained exhibits were subjected to serological analysis.

The origin was determined by the gel diffusion method,

cross over electrophoresis and blood grouping was

determined by the absorption elution method. This

evidence in respect of Exhibit P4 / Wound Certificate

and so also the Opinion Report at Exhibit P5 inclusive

of the FSL Report at Exhibit P6. But the charges were

framed by the Trial Court against the accused for

offences under Sections 341 read with Section 34 of the

IPC, 1860. However, there are clouds of doubt in the

evidence of the prosecution.

16. Secondly, charges were framed for offences

under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC but

alternatively, charges were framed against the accused

Nos.1 and 2 for offences under Section 324 read with

Section 34 of the IPC. However, Section 308 of IPC

relates to culpable homicide. But at this juncture, it is

relevant to refer to Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, in respect of charge.

17. Section 211 Cr.P.C. relates to contents of

charge, which contains clauses (i) to (iv) which reads

thus:

(i) Section 212 relates to particulars as to time, place and person;

(ii) Section 213 relates as to when manner of committing offences must be stated;

(iii) Section 214 relates to words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable;

(iv) Section 218 relates to separate charges for distinct offences.

Whereas under this provision, clause (i) states

that, for every distinct offence of which any person is

accused, there shall be a separate charge and every

such charge shall be tried separately.

18. In the instant case, particularly charge was

framed under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the

IPC relating to wrongful confinement of the injured.

Secondly, the charges were framed under Section 308

read with Section 34 of the IPC and alternatively the

charges were framed under Section 324 read with

Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. If an accused is charged of

major offences such as offences under Section 308 read

with Section 34 IPC, and thereafter on the basis of facts

if it is found that the accused is not guilty of the alleged

offences, the domain is vested with the Trial Court, to

charge the accused with minor offences. But in the

instant case, the accused were charged with major

offences under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the

IPC relating to attempt to commit culpable homicide

and alternatively charge was framed under Section 324

read with Section 34 of the IPC by way of clubbing of

charge. Therefore, it requires for looking into the

concept of Section 299 of the IPC, 1860 in respect of

culpable homicide. Explanations 1 to 3 of Section 299

of IPC reads thus:

Explanation 1.--A person who causes bodily

injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,

disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the

death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his

death.

Explanation 2.--Where death is caused by bodily

injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall

be deemed to have caused the death, although by

resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment of the

death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3.--The causing of the death of child

in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may

amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a

living child, if any part of that child has been brought

forth, though the child may not have breathed or been

completely born.

19. However, there is distinction between culpable

homicide and murder. But culpable homicide is the

genus and murder is its species and all murders are

culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not

murders. This issue was extensively addressed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMPAL SINGH

vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2012) 8 SCC 289.

The presumption regarding intention or knowledge is an

important element relating to culpable homicide or even

for offences under Section 308 of the IPC, 1860. But in

the instant case, the charges were framed under Section

308 read with Section 34 of the IPC and alternatively,

Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. But

intention of the accused must be judged not in the light

of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what is

supposed to be the circumstances. Therefore, the

accused cannot be convicted even if culpable homicide

has been lugged against the accused by invoking the

provisions of Section 308 of the IPC, 1860.

20. But in the instant case, the established

involvement of the accused in the incident narrated in

the complaint at Exhibit P1 filed by the injured Sathisha

and based upon the complaint, criminal law was set

into motion by registering the crime and also recording

an FIR. In his complaint, he has narrated that Accused

No.1 / Puttasiddamma had held his shirt collar while he

was proceeding in front of her house and dragged the

injured Sathisha near her house and then accused

No.2/Samandaiah, her relative is said to have assaulted

him with means of MO-2 on his head, as a result, he

sustained injuries as indicated at Exhibit P4 of the

Wound Certificate issued by PW-5/Doctor and so also

issued the Opinion Report as per Exhibit P5 relating to

corresponding injures by making use of MO-2 Bamboo

club.

21. PW-1 Satisha who is an injured and also

author of the complaint at Exhibit P1, did not support

the case of the prosecution and he had given a go-by to

the versions of his statements at Exhibit P1. But the

Trial Court had convicted the accused by giving more

credence to the evidence though his evidence runs

contrary to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who are eye-

witnesses on the part of the prosecution. But in totality

of consideration of the evidence of PW-1 and so also the

evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, their evidence runs

contrary to each other and further contrary to the

evidence of PW-6 / Annegowda who is a Head Constable

and PW-7 / M.J. Lokesh who is an I.O. in part, PW-8 /

B. Puttaswami who is also an I.O. in part and PW-11 /

Subbaiah who is the I.O. who laid the charge-sheet

against the accused.

22. In the instant case, in all, three Investigating

Officers have investigated the case and all their evidence

appears to be camouflaged and also somersault of the

theory put forth by the prosecution. Therefore, under

this appeal, it requires for re-appreciation of the

evidence. If not, the accused would be the sufferer and

also it would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

23. Whereas, Section 134 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872, no particular number of witnesses shall in

any case be required for the proof of any fact. Criminal

prosecution is launched against the accused and

criminal law is set into motion by recording an FIR on

receipt of a complaint under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.

Subsequent to registration of the crime, it is the domain

vested with the Investigating Authority to take up the

case for investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and

to investigate the case thoroughly and lay a charge-

sheet against the accused. Subsequent to laying of the

charge-sheet, the domain is vested with the Trial Court

to proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of

the Cr.P.C. and so also the relevant provisions of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But keeping in view Section

134 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is well-known

principle of law the reliance can be based upon even

solitary statement of witnesses if the Court comes to the

conclusion that the said statement is the true and

correct version of the case of the prosecution. This was

extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Raja v. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del).

Insofar as Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is

the quality of evidence and not the quantity of the

evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to

place credence on the statement as referred in the

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of

Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal, 2008 (8) JT 650.

24. In the instant case, the injured PW-1 Satisha

is the author of the complaint at Exhibit P1 and based

upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by

registering a crime and also recording an FIR. The FIR

was recorded as indicated in the substance of the

allegations made against the accused. But PW-1

Sathisha in the instant case, has given a go-by to the

versions of his statements and has turned around the

allegations made against the accused in the complaint.

Hence, his evidence does not support the evidence of

the independent witnesses namely PW2 and PW3 and

even the official witnesses.

25. But in respect of plurality of witnesses, in the

matter of appreciation of the evidence of witnesses, it is

not the number of witnesses, but quality of their

evidence which is important, as there is no requirement

in law of evidence that any particular number of

witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact.

The domain is vested with the Trial Court to appreciate

the evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. But the evidence must be weighed and not

counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of

trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.

The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided

by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality

of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which

determines the adequacy of evidence as has been

provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. In this

regard, it is relevant to refer the reliance of AIR 2013

SC 1204 in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs

vs. Bhagwantbura (Dead) through LRs.. Further, the

law of evidence does not require any particular number

of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact.

However, faced with the testimony of a single witness,

the court may classify the oral testimony of a single

witness, into three categories, namely,

i) wholly reliable,

ii) wholly unreliable and

iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

26. In the first two categories, there may be no

difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the

single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category

of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to

look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable

testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon

testimony of a single witness. It is relevant to refer the

reliance of AIR 2003 SC 854 in the case of Lallu

Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand.

27. But PW-1 Sathisha who was by avocation an

autorickshaw driver, is said to have indulged in eve-

teasing Puttasiddamma / accused No.1. But the said

PW-1 Sathisha was said to be frequently quarrelling

with his wife Lakshmi, who had died six years prior to

the incident. But since his son aged 14 years was in

the care and custody of his in-laws, the said Sathisha

used to frequently visit his in-laws house at Talagawadi

in Malavalli Taluk. The said Puttasiddamma was

residing in the neighbouring house of his in-laws.

Hence, PW-1 Sathisha is said to have cultivated the

habit of eve-teasing Puttasiddamma regularly, on his

frequent visits to Talagawadi, particularly whenever she

used to go out of her house to fetch water or to fetch

any coolie work to eke out her livelihood. It is stated

that previously when Sathisha's wife was alive itself,

Accused No.2 / Samandaiah who was the relative of

Accused No.1 / Puttasiddamma used to advise Sathisha

not to quarrel with his wife Lakshmi or assault her. In

that regard, there was always an ill-will prevailing

between the complainant Sathisha and Accused No.2 /

Samandaiah. Thus, a prudent man can infer that there

was some ill-will or enmity between PW-1 / Sathisha

and Accused No.2 / Samandaiah who is none other

than a relative of Accused No.1 / Puttasiddamma.

28. However, in the instant case, the Trial Court

has given more credence to the evidence of PW-2 and

PW-3 who are eye-witnesses on the part of the

prosecution. But their evidence runs contrary to the

evidence of PW-1 Sathisha and further contradictory to

the evidence of PW-5 doctor. Therefore, in this appeal,

it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence facilitated

by the prosecution. If not, certainly there shall be a

miscarriage of justice. But appeal is nothing but

continuity of proceedings which requires re-appreciation

of the entire evidence available on record, both oral and

documentary. If not, the accused who is a gravamen of

the accusation would be the sufferer.

29. Accordingly, under this appeal, it requires for

intervention by considering the bone of contention made

by the counsel for appellants. Keeping in view the

grounds urged in this appeal, it is opined that the

appellants / accused deserve to be acquitted.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by appellants / accused

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is hereby

allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in

S.C.No.50/2013 dated 28.05.2014 is hereby set aside.

Consequent upon setting aside the judgment of

conviction rendered by the Trial Court, Accused Nos.1

and 2 are hereby acquitted for offences punishable

under Sections 324 and 342 read with Section 34 of the

IPC, 1860.

If any bail bond has been executed by appellants /

Accused Nos.1 and 2, the same shall stand cancelled. If

the fine amount has already been deposited by the

appellants, the same shall be returned to the respective

appellants, on proper identification in accordance with

law. Accordingly Ordered.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS