Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Through vs K J Murugesh on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.641 OF 2011
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
SAGAR TOWN POLICE
SAGAR. ... APPELLANT
[BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP]
AND
1. K.J.MURUGESH
S/O JANARDHANA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
CEO IN SRI SIGANDURESHWARI
EDUCATION TRUST, SAGAR
R/O 2ND BAZAAR LINE
KARGAL, SAGAR TALUK
2. CHANDRU @ CHANDRAKUMAR
S/O SREEDHAR NAYAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
SUPERVISOR IN SRI SIGANDURESHWARI
EDUCATION TRUST, SAGAR
R/O JOG ROAD, KARGAL
SAGAR TALUK
3. SANJEEV
S/O LATE K. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WORK
IN SRI SIGANDURESHWARI
2
EDUCATION TRUST, SAGAR
R/O BILAGALLUR, JOG
SAGAR TALUK, KARGAL
4. B.G.PRAVEEN
S/O GANAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
IN SRI SIGANDURESHWARI
EDUCATION TRUST, SAGAR
R/O BYADANAHALLI, TUPPUR
KUMSI HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK
5. K.G.ALOKA
S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING IN SRI SIGANDURESHWARI
EDUCATION TRUST, SAGAR
R/O KELADI VILLAGE
SAGAR TALUK
6. R. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O RAMU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING IN SRI SIGANDURESHWARI
EDUCATION TRUST, SAGAR
R/O BILAGALLUR, JOG
SAGAR TALUK ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI R.V.RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE
AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2010
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE,
SHIMOGA IN SPL. ATROCITY CASE NO.9/08 - ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENTS FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 504, 323,
324, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989.
3
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court for offences
Punishable under Sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 506 read
with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Charges were framed against
accused/respondents for the aforesaid offences alleging
that on 19.06.2008 at about 12.30 p.m., when the
complainant - PW.1 along with PW.2 had been to D.Ed.
college situated on the 1st floor of Vani Motors, Industrial
Estate, BH Road, Sagar to discuss about the college fees
collected from the students, accused Nos.1 to 6 formed an
unlawful assembly with a common object of humiliating
and insulting their caste, abused them in filthy words like
'sule makkala', so as to provoke them to break the public
peace and then pulled and pushed PW.1. Further when
PW.2 tried to pacify, he was also pushed on account of
which he sustained injuries. Further, accused No.1
assaulted PW.1 with an iron rod on his right leg and left
hand and accused gave life threat to them as well as PW.3
etc.
3. Heard the learned High Court Government for
appellant/State and perused the records.
4. To establish the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to
10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 and MO1 were
marked. The defence got marked Exs.D1 to D8. The trial
Court by impugned judgment acquitted the accused holding
that the evidence available on record is not satisfactory and
convincing and no way establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts.
5. PW.1 is the complainant and a injured witness.
PW.2 is another injured witness.
6. As per Ex.P1, PW.1 is the founder president of
Sagar Gangothri D.Ed College and he claims to be running
the institution as on the date of incident. Since the
members of the trust were giving trouble to the students
forcing them to pay the college fees to them, he went to
the college at about 12.30 p.m. to discuss about the matter
and when he and PW.2 were present, the accused persons
came and started assaulting him as well as PW.2 with
hands, clubs and iron rod. Further, accused No.4 -
Praveena stabbed on the forehead of PW.2 with a knife and
the accused persons abused them saying 'Holeya Sule
Makkala' and threatened them with dire consequences.
7. From the evidence of PW.1, it can be gathered
that so called Sagar Gangothri Shikshana Samsthe,
wherein, he was one of the trustees, is no more in
existence and it was changed to Shree Sigandureshwari
Shikshana Samsthe which was being run under the
presidentship of Belagali Krishnamurthy. In his cross
examination, it is elicited that the complainant has seized
to be the trustees of the said Education Institution and has
no right or authority whatsoever in the said institution and
all the earlier trustees who were running Sagar Gangothri
Shikshana Samsthe have resigned and seized to be the
trustees of the institution.
8. According to PW.1, the management of
Sigandureshwari Shikshana Samsthe started collecting
fresh fees from the students, hence he approached the
Principal for a discussion and also to advice him not to
harass the students. It is also elicited that after the new
trust was formed he was not given any role as such a Civil
suit was filed, which came to be dismissed. PW.1 has
admitted that the Civil Court has passed the order under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 as per Ex.D1 and admitted that
thereafter he filed a memo to withdraw the suit.
9. The evidence on record would also reveal that
PW.1 entered the Principal's chamber and occupied the
Principal's chair and it is admitted by PW.2 that the staff of
the college questioned the authority of PW.1 and asked him
to leave the said chair. In that connection there was
exchange of words between the staff of the college and
PW.1. As a result there was a push and pull. According to
PW.1 accused persons assaulted him with hands and
accused No.1 assaulted with a rod below the knees and
when PW.2 tried to intervene he was also assaulted and
accused persons abused taking the name of his caste and
threatened him with dire consequences. In his evidence
PW.1 has made omnibus allegations that the accused
persons have abused PWs.1 and 2 as 'Hole sule magane',
'Holeya madigare' etc. It is not stated as to which of the
accused used the abusive words insulting the caste.
10. According to PW.2, accused No.2 assaulted him
on his back with a rod and accused No.1 assaulted PW.1
with a rod and accused No.2 stabbed him near his right eye
with a knife and caused injuries to him. PW.1 has not at all
stated that PW.2 was assaulted with a rod by accused No.2
on his back and also accused No.2 stabbing him with a
knife near his eye. Both PWs.1 and 2 have stated that after
hearing the quarrel the other witnesses namely PWs.3 to 7
came to the spot and when they came accused were
abusing them in filthy language. A careful perusal of the
evidence of PWs.1 and 2 show that after other witnesses
came to the spot there was no assault made by the
accused persons but they only abused and threatened
PWs.1 and 2. However, according to PWs.3 to 6 they have
seen the accused persons assaulting PWs.1 and 2.
11. According to P.W.2, accused No.2 stabbed him
near his right eye with a knife and caused injury to him.
The defence has got marked Ex.D4, a portion from the
statement of P.W.2, wherein he has stated that since he
was pushed and pulled, finger nail of someone came in
contact and as such he sustained injury to his forehead.
Even though P.W.2 denied of having given such a
statement before the Police, the Investigation Officer-P.W.9
was confronted with the said statement and he has
admitted that P.W.2 has stated before him as per Ex.D4.
Further, the statement of P.W.1 given before the Police was
marked by the defence as per Ex.D2 wherein P.W.9-
Investigation Officer has admitted that such a statement
was given by P.W.1 stating that P.W.2 sustained injury to
his forehead when he was pushed and pulled by someone
and on account of finger nail coming in contact. As per
the Wound Certificates issued by P.W.8-Doctor, both
P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained abrasions and pain, which
according to the doctor are simple in nature.
12. The trial Court having appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence, has observed that there are
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and there is clear admission that P.W.1 has unauthorizedly
occupied the chair of the Principal which led to unhealthy
incident. P.W.1 has made allegation that accused No.1
brought a club and assaulted him but, no such club has
been seized or marked in evidence. Further, even though it
is alleged that P.W.2 was stabbed with a knife by accused
No.2, no such knife has been seized.
13. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not free from
taint and from their evidence it appears that they are
interested witnesses and the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 does
not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 himself
contradicts his own complaint and has given a different
version in the chief-examination and the cross-
examination. Further, in the background of the dispute
between the parties as admitted by P.W.1 and in view of
serious contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has acquitted the
accused after giving reasons. There is no illegality
committed by the trial Court.
14. This is an appeal against the Judgment of
acquittal. Having found no illegality or perversity in the
impugned Judgment of the trial Court, the appeal deserves
to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB & Ksm*
