State Of Karnataka vs Vinayak Rama Gouda
2022 Latest Caselaw 4771 Kant

                               1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100203/2015

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HONNAVAR POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

AND:

1.     VINAYAK RAMA GOUDA,
       AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
       R/O: KORE KHARVA,
       TQ: HONNAVAR,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

2.     MARUTI DEVA GOUDA,
       AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
       R/O: KORE KHARVA,
       TQ: HONNAVAR,
       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
                               2




3.   TIMMAPPA KESHA GOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS,
     R/O: KORE KHARVA,
     TQ: HONNAVAR,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

4.   RAMA ANNU GOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS,
     R/O: KORE KHARVA,
     TQ: HONNAVAR,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

5.   VINOD RAMA GOUDA,
     AGED ABOUT: 23 YEARS,
     R/O: KORE KHARVA,
     TQ: HONNAVAR,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE & SRI. S.S. YADRAMI,
SENIOR COUNSEL)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.378(1) & (3) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.06.2014
PASSED   IN   C.C.   NO.80/2014   BY   THE   LEARNED   J.M.F.C.,
HONNAVAR, TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 25.06.2014 PASSED IN C.C. NO.80/2014 BY
THE LEARNED J.M.F.C., HONNAVAR AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SECS.143, 147, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              3




                        JUDGMENT

A first information report was lodged by P.W.1-injured

witness alleging that on 20.11.2013, accused Nos.1 to 5,

sharing a common intention to commit the offence of

rioting, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,

abused the informant in filthy language, pushed him down

and assaulted him by hands all over the body and also gave

life threat to him stating that they would throw him into the

river. The police registered the first information report

against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police after investigation

submitted a charge sheet before the learned Magistrate for

the aforesaid offences alleged against the respondents.

2. The prosecution to prove its case examined

P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5 &

5(a). The accused did not choose to lead any oral evidence;

however, marked documents as Exs.D.1 to D.5. The

learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and after examining

the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment

acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of

IPC. Taking exception to the same, the State is in appeal.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the

injured witness viz., P.W.1 and the eye witnesses viz.,

P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly discloses that the respondents-

accused have committed the offence alleged against them,

but the learned Magistrate ignoring the said evidence has

passed the impugned judgment which is contrary to the

evidence on record. He further submits that the statements

of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. were confronted to P.W.1 instead of confronting the

same to the Investigating Officer who is examined as

P.W.7. Hence, he submits that the learned Magistrate ought

to have ignored the contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1

before passing the impugned judgment.

4. On the other hand, Sri. Girish Bhat, the learned

counsel appearing for the respondents-accused would

submit that the learned Magistrate, after examining the

evidence in a proper perspective, has rightly passed the

impugned judgment acquitting the accused of the offences

alleged against them.

5. I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

6. P.W.1 is the injured witness and he has

supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3, who

are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident, have

supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.4 and 5, who

are also the alleged eye witnesses, have turned hostile and

have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.6 & 8,

who are witnesses to the spot panchanama at Ex.P.2, have

turned hostile and have not supported the case of the

prosecution. P.W.9, the Medical Officer, in his chief-

examination, has stated that on examination of P.W.1, he

did not find any external injuries nor he treated the P.W.1-

injured witness. The other official witnesses have supported

the case of the prosecution.

7. The P.W.1 in his evidence has denied the

recording of further statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

and the said statements are contrary to the allegations

made in the FIR at Ex.P.1. In the wound certificate at

Ex.P4, it is mentioned that no external injuries are caused

to P.W.1 [C.W.1] and also there is a discrepancy in the date

of the incident. Further, the author of the wound certificate

viz., P.W.9 has categorically stated that no external injuries

were found and no treatment was given to the injured

witness viz., P.W.1 who was brought to the hospital by the

police.

8. The Prosecution having failed to prove that the

accused assaulted P.W.1 and failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Magistrate has

passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused of

the offences alleged against them. The prosecution having

failed to prove that accused assaulted P.W.1, the learned

Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned judgment. On

re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any

error or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the

learned magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kms