Karnataka High Court
Sri S H Ramakrishnappa vs State By Rajanakunte Police on 13 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1183 OF 2013
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.978 OF 2010
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1183 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
S R NAGESH
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SADENAHALLI
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJANUKUNTE POLICE
BANGALORE
2. CHENNARAYAPPA
S/O. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SADENAHALLI
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
(SINCE HE HAS DEAD)
3. S.L. MANOJ
S/O. S.M. LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT SADENAHALLI
2
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
4. LOKESH
S/O. MUNIYAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT SADENAHALLI
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...........RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI.V. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.09.2010 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-II,
BANGALOE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN
S.C. NO.239 OF 2008 IN THE ITEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 978 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
STATE BY RAJANAKUNTE POLICE
STATION,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
3
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-
II, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN
S.C.NO.146/2008 DATED 13.09.2010 TO THE EXTENT OF
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION-307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION-307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE; B)
ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS, TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 20.09.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Crl.A.No.978/2010 is by accused No.1 by name
S.H.Ramakrishnappa, challenging his conviction and
sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307
I.P.C, whereby he is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay fine of
Rs.25,000/- in default undergo further imprisonment for
a period of 2 years, in respect of Cr.No.111/2007
Rajanukunte P.S.
2. On the other hand, Crl.A.No.1183/2013 is
filed by complainant by name S.R.Nagesh challenging the
acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34
I.P.C, arising out of Cr.No.112/2007 of Rajanukunte P.S.
3. Having regard to the fact that these two cases
are arising out of incident dated 08.10.2007 and the
complainant in Cr.No.111/2007 is the wife of accused
No.3 in Cr.No.112/2007. Similarly, the complainant in
Cr.No.112/2007 is the son of accused No.1 in
Cr.No.111/2007. These two appeals are clubbed together
and decided by a common order.
4. In Cr.No.111/2007, Smt.H.N. Shyamala filed
a complaint alleging that on 08.10.2007, at 9.00 a.m her
husband Lokesh was filling mud into the ditch near their
house. Accused No.1 Ramakrishnappa's son i.e., accused
No.2 Ravi came there and started obstructing the filling
of mud claiming that the said land belongs to them.
Accused No.1 Ramakrishnappa assaulted Lokesh on his
head and other parts of the body with the club, as a
result of which he fell down unconscious. Accused No.2
Ravi kicked him with legs. When she cried for help, they
left the place saying that it is enough for the day and
gave threat to his life, if again he enter the land. Injured
Lokesh was shifted to Sushrusha Hospital, Yelahanka and
from there to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. There is dispute
between the family with regard to land in Sy.No.131/1
and it is the reason for the assault.
5. Based on the complaint, the concerned police
registered the case in Cr.No.111/2007 against accused
Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 324, 506, Section 34 I.P.C. During spot Mahazar,
the club used for committing the offence was seized. The
statement of witnesses and further statement of
complainant was recorded implicating accused Nos.3 and
4. Second FIR was sent. Statement of injured Lokesh
was also recorded. The Investigating Officer arrested
accused No.3 and later on he was released on bail. The
remaining accused secured anticipatory bail. After
completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable
under Sections 323, 307 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. After
committal, it was registered in SC.No.146/2008.
6. So far as SC.No.239/2008 is concerned, one
Nagesh, S/o Ramakrishnappa, who is accused No.1 in
SC.No.146/2008 filed complaint on 09.10.2007, in
respect of the same incident dated 08.10.2007, alleging
that Lokesh, who is injured in Cr.No.111/2007 was filling
mud in land Sy.No.131/1 and when Ramakrishnappa
questioned him, the said Lokesh, Chanrayappa and
Manoj assaulted him with hands and kicked with legs and
caused bleeding injuries. Manoj assaulted
Ramakrishnappa with stones and they gave threat to his
life. Complainant's cousin Ganesha and Manjunatha
shifted Ramakrishnappa to the hospital.
7. Based on the said complaint, Rajanukunte
police registered case in Cr.No.112/2007 for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34
I.P.C. During investigation, the Investigation Officer has
visited the spot and through mahazar seized one club.
He has recorded the statements of witnesses and also
injured Ramakrishnappa. Accused Nos.1 to 3 secured
bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is
filed only against accused Nos.1 and 2 in
CC.No.1290/2008. However, as per the order of the
Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
the trial Court committed this case to the Court of
Sessions, since it is an counter case. After committal, it
was registered in SC.No.239/2008.
8. In SC.No.146/2008, on behalf of prosecution,
9 witnesses are examined as PW-1 to 9. Ex.P1 to 9 and
MO.1 are marked.
9. During the course of their statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused have denied the
incriminating evidence.
10. In fact the accused has led defence evidence
by examining one witness as DW-1 one and accused
No.1 has examined himself as DW-2. They have relied
upon Ex.D1 to 9.
11. In SC.No.239/2008, on behalf of prosecution,
PW-1 to 7 are examined. Ex.P1 to 4, MO-1 are marked.
12. During the course of their statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C accused have denied the
incriminating evidence.
13. Accused No.2 Lokesh, who is the injured in
the other case examined himself as DW-1 and Ex.D1 to
11 are marked.
14. After hearing arguments of both sides, on the
same day through separate judgments and orders, the
trial Court has acquitted the accused in SC.No.239/2008,
holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home
guilt to the accused. However, in SC.No.146/2008,
though the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 of all
the charges, it convicted accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Section 307 I.P.C and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default sentence.
15. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
and order, accused No.1 has filed Crl.A.No.978/2010,
contending that the order is capricious, vexatious,
perverse and bad in law. It is very much against the
principles of natural justice. It lacks proper and
convincing reasons and suffers from perversity. The trial
Court has erred in believing the evidence of PW-1 to 3
who are close relatives and interested person. Their
evidence is full of contradictions. When accused Nos.2 to
4 are acquitted, based on the same evidence, the trial
Court is not justified in convicting accused No.1. While
PW-1 and 2 have stated that the clothes of PW-2 were
not stained with blood, PW-8 who is the doctor has
deposed that he has handed over blood stained clothes
to the concerned police. But, no such blood stained
clothes are seized by the police. However, the trial Court
has not appreciated this aspect. Having regard to the
fact that the injured has not sustained bleeding injury,
the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Viewed from
any angle the order is not sustainable and prays to allow
and set aside the judgment and order and acquit
appellant/accused No.1.
16. So far as Crl.A.No.1183/2013 is concerned,,
the complainant has contended that the impugned order
is perverse and liable to be set aside. It is not supported
by any valid and justifiable reasons. It is illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to law and evidence placed on record.
The evidence of PW-2 Ramakrishnappa clearly throw the
case of the prosecution and it is corroborated by Ex.P4.
His evidence is supported by other witnesses. There is
also motive for the accused to assault Ramakrishnappa
and prays to allow the appeal, convict the accused and
sentence them accordingly.
17. So far as Crl.A.No.978/2010 is concerned, the
learned counsel representing the complainant as well as
the learned High Court Government Pleader supported
the impugned judgment and order and prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
18. So far as Crl.A.No.1183/2013 is concerned,
learned counsel for accused submitted that on
08.10.2007, Ramakrishnappa and others assaulted
injured Lokesh, as a result of which he fell down
unconscious and regained conscious only after several
days. In order to escape from the criminal liability, as an
afterthought, a false complaint was filed against Lokesh
and others. After examining the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, rightly the trial Court has
acquitted injured Lokesh and others and the impugned
judgment and order does not call for interference and
prays to dismiss the appeal.
19. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and
perused the record.
20. It is an undisputed fact that there is dispute
between the parties with regard to land in Sy.No.131/1
of Sadahalli village. In SC.No.146/2008, during her cross
examination, PW-1 who is the complainant and eye
witness and the wife of injured Lokesh has admitted that
accused persons are in possession of half of the said
land. In this regard she has volunteered and stated that
they are enjoying this said extent of land for the last 5-6
years, but prior to it, she and members of her family
were enjoying the entire extent. It is also not in dispute
that on 08.10.2007, Lokesh was getting the pits near his
house filled with mud and it was objected to by
Ramakrishnappa. In fact, it is also the case of
Ramakrishnappa that when he objected Lokesh from
filling the pits with mud, he was assaulted by
Channarayappa, Lokesh and Manoj. Therefore, the
motive for the incident is proved.
21. Now coming to the case of the prosecution in
Cr.No.111/2007 (SC.No.146/2008), wherein accused
No.1 Ramakrishnappa is convicted for assaulting Lokesh
with the club with an intention of causing his death.
During the course of her evidence, PW-1 H.N.Shyamala,
the wife of injured Lokesh has deposed in unequivocal
terms about the incident and stated that after
Ramakrishnappa assaulted Lokesh with the club on his
head, he fell down unconscious. On hearing her cries, the
accused persons left the place. In the complaint, the
complainant has spoken to about the presence of
accused No.1 Ramakrishnappa and his son i.e., accused
No.2 Ravi. However, in her further statement, she has
implicated the other two accused. Even the injured i.e,
PW-2 Lokesh has deposed that in the background of civil
dispute pending between them, on the date of incident
accused No.1 Ramakrishnappa assaulted him with the
club on his head, as a result of which he fell down and
unconscious. The evidence of the injured and
complainant prove the allegations that accused No.1
Ramakrishnappa assaulted Lokesh on his head with the
club, as a result of which he fell unconscious. He was
treated at the first instance at the Sushrusha Hospital
and later at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital.
22. The evidence of PW-6 Dr.Kiran is to the effect
that immediately after the incident, injured Lokesh was
brought to Sushrusha Hospital and after first aid, he was
shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. PW-8 Dr.Mali
Manjunath has treated the injured at M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital. His evidence prove the fact that injured Lokesh
had sustained depressed fracture on left frontal region.
The CT scan revealed left tempror extra-dural
haematoma with extensive skull fracture. There was also
right haeme peresis upper limb and lower limb, right
facial upper motor neuron paresis and he has given
opinion that the injuries are grievous in nature and are
possible, if assaulted with MO-1 club.
23. However, he has admitted during cross-
examination that such injuries are possible if a person
falls on a hard object when he was chased by somebody.
During the cross examination of PW-1 and 2, the accused
have taken a defence that injured Lokesh was assaulted
by workers from Bihar which they have denied. Of course
the defence has failed to prove that on the date of
incident or at any other time he was assaulted by some
other persons and at that time he had sustained head
injury. Consequently, the accused have taken false
defence. On the other hand through the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, the prosecution
has proved that on 08.10.2007, Lokesh was assaulted by
accused No.1 with a club, as a result of which he
sustained head injury and fell down unconscious.
24. One more ground urged by the accused is
that during his cross-examination PW-8 Dr.Mali
Manjunath has deposed that the clothes of injured
Lokesh were blood stained and he has handed them over
to the concerned police. He has also deposed that there
are documents in the hospital to show that the blood
stained clothes of injured were handed over to the
police. During her cross-examination PW-1,
H.N.Shyamala, who is the wife of injured has deposed
that though her husband sustained head injury, his
clothes were not stained with blood. In fact, the
concerned police have not at all seized any blood stained
clothes. PW-8 has also not produced any documents
from the hospital to show that he has handed over blood
stained clothes of injured to the concerned police. The
evidence of PW-8 on this aspect is not supported by any
documentary evidence.
25. Having regard to the fact that as a doctor, he
attends several cases of injuries, it appears by mistaken
notion he has deposed that he has handed over blood
stained clothes of injured Lokesh to the police. In fact
PW-8, who is the Investigating Officer has deposed that
he could not seize the blood stained clothes of injured
Lokesh, as they were removed by the hospital
authorities. As Lokesh was unconscious for a long time
and the Investigating Officer could not question him
immediately, it appears he has not paid much attention
as to whether the clothes of Lokesh were blood stained
requiring them to be seized. The blood stained clothes of
injured by itself is not a substantial piece of evidence,
though it would have been a supporting piece of
evidence. In the light of the overwhelming evidence
placed on record by the prosecution, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the fact that the blood stained
clothes of injured Lokesh were not seized by the
Investigating Officer would not go to the root of the
prosecution case.
26. The defence has also come up with a case
that on the date of incident accused No.3 S.R. Nagesh
worked at Auto Bilz India Limited and thereby to show
that he was not present at the spot. DW-1
Venkatramana is examined to prove this fact. However,
his cross-examination reveal that he is no longer working
in the said company and in Ex.D2 and 3, the employee
number is not forthcoming. There is also punching card
system and there will be record to show the entry and
exit of the concerned employees. He has also admitted
that Ex.D2, which is Overall Equipment Efficiency report
is not signed by the concerned. He has also admitted
that Ex.D3 is not original and it is a true copy.
Examination of his evidence indicate that the accused
No.3 has made a futile attempt to show that at the time
of incident, he was not present at the spot.
27. On the other hand, accused No.1 has given
evidence with regard to the other case in which he was
allegedly assaulted by injured Lokesh. The evidence
placed on record clearly prove that after assault with the
club, Lokesh fell down unconscious. He has regained
consciousness only at the hospital on subsequent date.
Taking into consideration the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record the trial Court has come to a
correct conclusion that accused No.1 is guilty of offence
punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.
28. So far as the involvement of other accused
are concerned, the trial Court has rightly not accepted
the case of prosecution that accused 3 and 4 were also
present. As far as accused No.2 is concerned, there is no
evidence about his involvement. Considering these facts,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4
and convicted accused No.1 only for the offence
punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. This Court finds no
justifiable grounds to interfere with the finding of trial
Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by accused No.1 in
Crl.A.No.978/2010 fails.
29. Now coming to the appeal filed by the
complainant in respect of Cr.No.112/2007
(SC.No.239/2008), wherein the allegations are that
accused No.4 Lokesh (who is injured in Cr.No.111/2007
and fell unconscious) and three others assaulted
Ramakrishnappa in the incident dated 08.10.2007.
Complainant herein is S.R.Nagesh, who is as accused
No.3 in Cr.No.111/2007, who claimed elibi. He has
chosen to file the complaint on 09.10.2007 at 12.30 p.m.
Admittedly, he is not an eye witness to the incident,
wherein his father and others were assaulted. In the
complaint as well as during the course of evidence of
PW-1, it is stated that the incident took place in
Sy.No.131/1 of Sadehalli village, but PW-3 Manjunath
who is the witness to the spot mahazar has deposed that
the place of incident is near the house of accused No.3
Lokesh which is admittedly situated in Sy.No.131/3. In
fact, according to the complainant in Cr.No.111/2007,
the place of incident is Sy.No.131/3, which fact is
established by the prosecution in the other case.
30. During the course of his evidence PW-2,
Ramakrishnappa, who is accused in the other case has
deposed that the incident took place in Sy.No.131/1 and
accused No.1 Channarayappa and accused No.2 Manoj
assaulted him with club and stone respectively. He has
not deposed about accused No.3 Lokesh assaulting him.
Ex.P4 is the Injury certificate of PW-2, Ramakrishnappa.
As per this document, he has suffered simple injuries. He
has expressed ignorance as to who shifted him to the
hospital. However, Ex.P4 which is the Injury Certificate
state that injured came alone (Injured was sent by
self.............Accompanied by self....). This falsies the
evidence of PW-1 S.R.Nagesh, that he and Ganesha took
the injured Ramakrishnappa to the hospital. PW-7
Dr.Ramesh has deposed that Ramkrishnappa has
suffered simple injuries. Looking to the injury suffered by
PW-2 Ramakrishnappa, absolutely there was no
impediment for him to file the complaint immediately. In
fact, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has received
the FIR on 10.10.2007. This also creates doubt as to the
bonafides of complaint filed against accused No.3 Lokesh
and others, especially after a complaint was filed with
regard to assault on accused No.3 Lokesh.
31. As rightly held by the trial Court, there is
dispute between the parties in respect of land and
Sy.No.131/1 of Sadenahalli, whereas the incident has
taken place in Sy.No.131/3, in which the residential
house of accused No.3 Lokesh is situated. This fact goes
to show that it is Ramakrishnappa and others who went
to the land belonging to accused No.3 Lokesh and
assaulted him. Only to escape from the legal liability, the
son of Ramakrishnappa has chosen to file a complaint.
Having regard to the fact that Lokesh fell down
unconscious, there was no possibility of he assaulting
Ramkrishnappa. Considering the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, the trial Court has come to a
correct conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove
the allegations against the accused persons in
Cr.No.112/2007 and acquitted them. This Court finds no
justifiable grounds to interfere with the said findings.
32. In the result, the appeal filed by compliment
in Crl.A.No.1183/2013 also fails and accordingly it is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.A.No.978/2010 filed by accused
No.1, challenging his conviction in
S.C.No.146/2008 and Crl.A.No.
1183/2013, filed by complainant,
challenging the acquittal of accused
Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.239/2008 are
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated
13.09.2010 in SC.No.146/2008 and
SC.No.239/2008 on the file of Fast Track
Court-II, Bengaluru Rural District
Bengaluru are confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back the
trial Court records along with copy of
this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
