State By Kote Police vs Murthy P @ Painter Murthy
2021 Latest Caselaw 993 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.608 OF 2011 (A)

BETWEEN:

STATE BY KOTE POLICE,
SHIMOGA.                                     ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

AND:

MURTHY P @ PAINTER MURTHY,
S/O PUTTANARASAIAH,
R/O SHANTHINAGAR, IV CROSS,
RAGIGUDDA, SHIMOGA.                       ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT H.R.ANITHA, ADVOCATE)

                           ****

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMNET DT.15.02.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR C.J. & CJM., SHIMOGA IN C.C.NO.433/2006-ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 325,
504 AND 506 OF IPC.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT   DELIVERED  THE  FOLLOWING  THROUGH    VIDEO
CONFERENCE:
                                2


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the State for setting aside the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.02.2011 passed in

C.C. No.433/2006 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and

CJM, Shivamogga, acquitting the respondent accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint

filed by the injured victim by name Srinivasa Reddy, S./o

Rudrappa the Station House Office of Kote police station have

registered the case in Crime No.83/2006 for the offences

punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506 IPC. The allegations

are that in the evening hours of 15.04.2006 the complainant

was having dinner along with his friends in a lunch home

situated in front of the KEB Office. At that time the accused by

name Murthy was creating nuisance by talking irrelevant things.

Therefore, the complainant scolded him as to why he is not

allowing them to have dinner. The accused picked up quarrel

with the complainant but some persons pacified and sent him

out from the lunch home. When the complainant was returning

home his friend Jony and accused Murthy went to Wine Store

and the complainant was standing near the said wine shop. At

that time the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant

and gave a blow with fist on his face. As a result of which the

complainant has lost his three teeth and there was bleeding

injury in the mouth. Meanwhile his friends Jony and Saleem

stopped the accused from assaulting the complainant. At that

juncture the complainant threatened to take away his life. After

completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge

sheet. On appearance of the accused the trial Court has taken

cognizance. The accused denied the charges read over to him

and pleaded not guilty.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has

examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked 5 documents as

EXs.P1 to P5 and the prosecution side was closed. Thereafter

the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded, but the accused denied the case of the prosecution.

4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

placed on record the trial Court has come to a conclusion that

there is no evidence available on record to establish the case of

the prosecution. Thereby the trial Court has acquitted the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325,

504, 506 of IPC. The State has preferred the appeal challenging

the said order.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would

contend that the documentary evidence namely the complaint

filed by the injured victim and the medical certificate clearly goes

to show that on account of the assault done by the accused the

injured victim has sustained grievous injuries. Even though the

injured victim namely the complainant and other independent

witnesses are not examined, the evidence of the Investigating

Officer goes to show that on receiving the complaint from the

injured victim he has registered the FIR as per EX.P.1 and has

conducted the spot mahazar as per EX.P2 in the presence of

panchas. The three teeth of the injured victim produced by the

injured victim have been seized and have been subject to

Property File. The injury certificate of the complainant has also

been produced as per EX.P5. There are no grounds to disbelieve

the evidence of PW.1 the Investigating Officer. But the trial

Court has committed error in acquitting the accused.

6. This Court had no opportunity to hear the

submission of learned counsel for the respondent accused.

7. It is pertinent to note that on the complaint filed by

the injured victim the police have registered the case. During

the investigation they have conducted spot mahazar as per

EX.P2 and have recovered the teeth of the injured victim but the

injured complainant and other independent witnesses or the

mahazar witnesses have not been examined. Even the Medical

Officer who has examined the injured victim is not examined.

The evidence of the sole witness namely the Investigating Officer

is not corroborated by the evidence of either injured complainant

or the independent witnesses. Hence the trial Court has rightly

come to the conclusion that the accused cannot be convicted

merely on the evidence of the Investigating Officer when there is

no convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view

that there are no valid grounds to set aside the order of acquittal

passed by the court below. Hence I pass the following -

ORDER

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

The order of acquittal passed in C.C. No.433/2006 by the

Principal Senior C.J. and CJM, Shimogga, for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC is confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ykl