Karnataka High Court
Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
CRL.A No. 833 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATH
S/O HALESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
2. SANDEEPA
S/O HALESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. SANTOSH
S/O HALESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O CHOWDESHWARINAGARA
3RD CROSS, DAVANAGERE
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. A HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
SUMITHRA R
Location: AND:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI NAGARA POLICE
DAVANAGERE CITY
REP BY S P P
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH BUILDING
BANGALORE-1.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
CRL.A No. 833 of 2012
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE SENTENCE DATED 25.06.2012 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN
SPL.C.(SC/ST)NO.20/2010 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323 R/W 34
OF IPC AND ALSO P/U/S 3(1)(x) AND 3(1)(xi) OF SC/STs (PA)
ACT, 1989 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court,
wherein the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and
learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent/State and perused the material on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused
No.1 was due a sum of Rs.1,000/- to first informant's
husband. He was demanding the said amount from him,
hence, on 25.05.2010 at 1.00 a.m., accused No.1 along
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
with accused Nos.2 and 3 trespassed into the house of the
first informant and picked up quarrel with her husband
Shidlappa, dragged him out of the house towards 'Banni
Mahakali Temple' and fisted him on his face etc and also
abused him taking the name of his caste, knowing fully
that he is a member of scheduled caste and humiliated
him. Further, when the first informant came to the rescue
of her husband, the accused persons used criminal force
on her, pulled her saree and outraged her modesty and
also committed criminal intimidation by threatening her
husband with dire consequences.
4. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to
3 for the offence punishable under Section 448, 323, 506
r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA)
Act r/w 34 of IPC.
5. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused
Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Section 448
and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. However, convicted for the offence
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3
(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act r/w 34 of IPC.
6. It is alleged in Ex.P2 - complaint that on
25.05.2010 at about 1.00 a.m., while they were sleeping
in the house, accused Nos.1 to 3 came and forcibly opened
the door and started abusing as '¯ÉÃ, ªÀiÁ¢UÀ ¸ÀƼÉà ªÀÄUÀ£'É
and then they held the collar of first informant's husband
and dragged him outside the house. Accused Nos.2 and 3
held him tightly and accused No.1 fisted on his face, head
etc. Accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated to assault him.
Further, they pulled the first informant and tore her blouse
and abused in filthy language.
7. The complaint was lodged on 28.05.2010 at
about 10.00 p.m. In Ex.P2 it is stated that since the
complainant's husband was taking treatment as an
inpatient, the complaint was lodged belatedly. Further,
stated that when the incident took place one Parashurama
- PW.7, Mohan and Raghu intervened and rescued the first
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
informant and her husband. As per Ex.P2, the injured was
initially shifted to Chigateri Government Hospital,
Davanagere, wherein, he was treated as an outpatient and
thereafter he was given treatment at Babuji Hospital and
then admitted at Navodaya Hospital as an inpatient.
8. First informant is examined as PW.3 and her
injured husband is examined as PW.4. Before adverting to
the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, it is relevant to appreciate
the evidence of PWs.5, 7 and 8. Hence, the evidence of
PW.3 and PW.4 will be discussed at a later stage.
9. PW.5 is none other than the brother of PW.3
and PWs.7 and 8 are the neighbours. According to PW.5,
he was very much present in the house of his sister when
the incident took place. He has stated that he heard the
quarrel and when he went out he saw PW.4 was
bleeding and accused Nos.1 to 3 were present. He has
stated that the accused had dragged his sister. PWs.7
and 8 are the neighbours. PW.7 has stated that the
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
accused were fisting the injured and he had sustained
bleeding injuries. PW.8 has stated that when she had
come out of the house after hearing the commotion, the
accused were dragging PW.3.
10. Neither PW.5 nor PWs.7 and 8 have stated
about accused persons abusing the complainant or her
husband with reference to their caste. PW.7 has only
stated about accused fisting the injured, but he has not
spoken about the accused either abusing PWs.3 and 4
insulting their caste or they pulling or they dragging the
complainant. In her deposition, PW.3 has given a
different version with regard to the abusive words used by
the accused. Her evidence with regard to the abusive
words alleged to have been used by the accused insulting
her caste is not corroborated by the evidence of PW.4.
According to PW.3, the accused pulled her and tore her
clothes. But the clothes are not seized. Hence the case of
the prosecution that the accused have abused PWs.3 and
4 insulting their caste and they dragged PW.3 and used
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
criminal force against her and outraged her modesty etc is
not established beyond reasonable doubt. The delay in
lodging the complaint also leads to an interference that
such allegations are made in the written complaint
belatedly.
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
appellant that in view of the inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful
and the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is not trustworthy. It is
therefore contended that no such incident has taken place
and because accused No.1 was due sum amount to PW.4,
a false complaint was lodged to extract money from him.
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that PW.4 has sustained injuries and medical
evidence also supports the evidence of PW.4 and therefore
contended that the prosecution has established that the
accused have assaulted PW.4 and caused injuries to him.
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
13. The prosecution has got examined the doctor -
PW.6, working at CG Hospital. He has deposed that on
25.05.2010 at about 2.10 a.m., he examined Shidlappa
i.e., PW.4 and noticed two injuries. He has stated that
there was no fracture as per the x-ray report and the
injury sustained are simple in nature. The wound
certificate is marked as Ex.P3.
14. Though in Ex.P2 it is stated that the injured was
initially taken to CG Hospital, Davangere and treated as an
outpatient and then shifted to Bapuji Hospital and from
there he was shifted to one Navodaya Hospital and
admitted as an inpatient, except Ex.P3, the wound
certificate issued by PW.6 no other medical documents
pertaining to the injured are produced and marked by the
prosecution.
15. PW.6 has not stated that the injured was
referred to any other hospitals. The evidence of PW.6
shows that on the very same day i.e., 25.05.2010, at
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
about 2.10 a.m., he examined the injured who came to
the hospital with a history of assault by accused Nos.1 to 3
at 1.00 a.m., on 25.05.2010, which is stated in the wound
certificate - Ex.P3. Hence, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the accused have not
assaulted PW.4 or not caused any injury etc can not be
accepted. There is no reason to doubt the evidence of
PW.6 and the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P3.
The evidence of PW.6 and the wound certificate of the
injured corroborates with the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4
to the extent that the accused have voluntarily caused
simple injury to PW.4. The prosecution has therefore
established the guilt of the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC. For the
forgoing reasons, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and order dated 25.06.2012 passed by
the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:44657
Special Judge, at Davangere in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.20/2012
in so far as convicting and sentencing the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable
under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 is hereby set aside.
The conviction and sentence passed against the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable
under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
