Karnataka High Court

Ramanjaneya vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2022

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509 OF 2011

BETWEEN:
RAMANJANEYA
S/O CHITHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC:COOLIE
R/AT NAGASAMUDRA
MOLAKALAMUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.UMESH.P.B, ADVOCATE
 FOR SRI. R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMAPURA POLICE.
                                       ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR.K.K-HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DT:29.04.11 PASSED BY THE PRL.DIST., AND S.J.,
CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.83/10 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC
AND ETC.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;
                                 2


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the accused against his

conviction and sentence passed by the court of Principal

District and Sessions Judge, at Chitradurga for the

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent-State and perused the material on record.

3. It is the case of prosecution that;

On 09.12.2010, during night hours, when

P.W.5-Erajja was sleeping near the sheepcote in

Nagasandra village, the accused with an intention to take

away his life, smashed his head with a stone and

voluntarily caused grievous injury to the left side of his

head and thereby committed an offence punishable

under Section 307 of IPC.

4. To establish the guilt of the accused,

prosecution got examined 12 witnesses and got marked

Exs.P.1 to 10 and MOs. 1 to 6.

5. P.W.1 is the first informant who lodged the

complaint as per Ex.P.1 he is a signatory to the spot-

mahazar Ex.P.2 under which MOs.1 to 3 have been

seized. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to the

spot-mahazar-Ex.P.2. They have turned hostile. P.W.4 is

the panch witness to Ex.P.3, under which blood stained

clothes of the injured have been seized. P.W.5 is the

victim. P.Ws.6 and 7 are circumstantial witnesses.

P.Ws.8 and 9 are witnesses, who speak about the motive

and earlier quarrel between accused and the victim.

P.W.10-Police Constable, carried the FIR to the

jurisdictional court. Ex.P.11 is the Investigation officer

who registered the case and conducted investigation and

submitted the charge sheet. P.W.12 is the medical officer

who treated the injured and issued wound certificate

marked as Ex.P.10.

6. The complaint is lodged by P.W.1 as per

Ex.P.1, on the basis of which, initially case was

registered against unknown person. The injured was

shifted to VIMS hospital, Bellary, wherein he was treated

by P.W.12. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.P.10.

According to which, the injured has sustained the

following injuries;

Patient conscious, oriental

PR-80/min, RR-20/min, BP-120/80 mm of Hg.

1. C.L.W. over the left parietal region of size 1 X 3 cm.

2. Active bleeding from nose present. X-Ray skull AP.Lat-Not done. CT Brain plain No.(Not done at VIMS). As per surgical opinion.

1. Acute subdural hematoma in left tempero- parietal region.

2. Contusion in left temporal lobe.

3. Linear fracture of the tempero parietal bone on left side.

7. P.W.12 has opined that the injuries are

grievous in nature and further opined as per Ex.P.7 that

injuries could be caused by MO2-Stone.

8. The prosecution is mainly relying on the

evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 to 9 and the medical evidence to

prove its case.

9. First informant who is examined as P.W.1, has

deposed in his evidence that at about 4.00 A.M in the

morning, his relative by name Sri. Lakshman (P.W.7)

informed him that someone has assaulted his uncle i.e.,

P.W.5 and he immediately along with his brother and

other family members, went to the spot and noticed his

uncle (P.W.5) with bleeding injuries on his head.

Immediately, they shifted him to VIMS hospital, Bellary

in an Autorikshaw. Thereafter, they went to police station

and lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. He has further

stated that police conducted the spot-mahazar as per

Ex.P.2 and M.Os.1 and 2 as well as M.O.3-Stone were

seized from the spot.

10. It is stated in Ex.P.1 that the injured was not

in a position to speak. In the wound cerfiticate-Ex.P.10,

the history furnished is that the injured was assaulted at

about 3.30 A.M. on 10.02.2010. Case was registered

against unknown person.

11. It is the specific case of the prosecution that

during the intervening night of 09.02.2010 and

10.02.2010, accused with an intention to commit

murder, hit the injured with a stone-M.O.3 on his head.

Admittedly, the complaint is lodged against unknown

person. As per evidence of P.W.12, injured was brought

to the hospital with a history of assault. He has admitted

in the cross- examination that patient was able to speak

when he was brought for treatment, but he was restless.

12. According to prosecution, it was P.W.7 who,

after hearing the cries of the injured, informed the

matter to P.W.1. Both P.Ws.1, 6 and others have shifted

the injured to the hospital. According to

P.W.11-Investigation Officer, even after the patient

regained consciousness, he was not in a position to

speak and he had obtained a certificate from the doctor,

however, the same is not produced. He has stated that

on 12.02.2010, he recorded the statements of Dodda

Eranna, Sante Maranna and Bommanna. He has

specifically stated that even on 18.02.2010, injured was

not in a position to give any statement.

13. From the above evidence on record, it can be

clearly gathered that none of the witnesses namely

P.Ws.1, 6 or 7 who went to the spot immediately knew

the name of the accused. They have also not stated that

the injured has revealed to them the name of the

accused. In the evidence of P.W.1, he has stated that

there was quarrel between the accused and the injured

earlier. In the cross-examination, he has stated that

there was ill will between them and accused, in view of

the previous quarrel. P.Ws.8 and 9 have deposed that

panchayaths were held earlier on account of dispute

between accused and the injured.

14. P.W.5 in his evidence has stated that at the

time of incident, it was dark. At one breath, he has

stated that when the accused assaulted him, he has seen

his face and at another breath he has stated that he

identified the accused by his voice. He has admitted in

the cross-examination, that he was in a deep sleep when

he was assaulted. But got up immediately when the

accused hit him. Though he has stated after regaining

consciousness he informed the doctor about the name of

the accused, same is not spoken by P.W.12. In the

cross-examination he admitted that his nephew

implicated the accused in the case. Though P.W.11 has

stated that when he visited the hospital, injured was not

in a position to speak and he received certificate from

the doctor and further admitted that a copy is retained

by him and original is with the doctor, the said

documents are not produced and marked. On the other

hand, P.W.12 has stated that at the time of admission of

patient, he was able to speak. The same gives rise to a

doubt in the mind of the court. P.W.5 has specifically

stated that it was dark when the incident took place.

Prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that

there was light at the place of incident. The same is also

not mentioned in the spot mahazar-Ex.P.2. Hence, P.W.5

being able to see the accused in the darkness as the one

who hit him with a stone is doubtful. It appears that in

view of the previous quarrel between accused and the

injured, on suspicion, name of the accused was spelt by

the witnesses. Though prosecution has been able to

establish that P.W.5 sustained injuries on his head, a

reasonable doubt arises about the role of the accused.

The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence the

following:

ORDER

Criminal appeal is allowed.

             The   Judgment       and   Order   of

     Conviction       and     Sentence,     dated

29.04.2011 passed by the court of Principal

District and Sessions Judge, at Chitradurga

for the offence punishable under Section

307 IPC is hereby set aside.