Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs K Rajashekharareddy @ ... on 30 June, 2023
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Basavaraja, Gbj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1809/2016
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRINIVASAPURA P S
HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA AT
...APPELLANT
(By Sri. K S ABHIJITH, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D
1. K RAJASHEKHARAREDDY @ CHIKKAREDDY
Location: High S/O KRISHNAREDDY
Court of AGED 38 YEARS
Karnataka
2. A C RAMANJANEYAREDDY
@ HANUMANTHAREDDY
42 YEARS, S/O CHINNAPPAREDDY
3. A V VENKATAREDDY @ REDDAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O A H VENKATA SWAMY GOWDA
4. A V RAGHUNATHREDDY
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O A H VENKATAREDDY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
5. A V ANIL KUMAR
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O A V VENKATAREDDY
6. A SRIRAMAREDDY
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O RAMAREDDY
7. ANJANEYAREDDY
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O JAYARAMAREDDY
8. NAGARAJAREDDY
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O HANUMAPPA
9. AMBARISHA
AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O NAGARAJAREDDY
ALL ARE R/O ATTIKUNTE VILLAGE
YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA
TALUK - 563135
10. NARAYANASWAMY
S/o.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O ATTIKUNTE VILLAGE,
YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA
TALUK - 563135, KOLAR DISTRICT.
(RESPONDENT NO.10 BY
ORDER DATED 6/7/2022)
(ACCUSED NO.2 IS DEAD)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9; SRI
JAVEED S. ADVOCATE FOR R10)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE
S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE THE
APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
II ADDL. S.J., AT KOLAR IN SPL.S.C.NO.26/2007 DATED
01.03.2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143,147,148,323,
324,325,326,307 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x),3(2)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT.1989.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 05.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, G
BASAVARAJA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The State is in appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal passed by the II Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Kolar in Spl.S.C.No.26/2007 dated
01.03.2016.
2. The prosecution's case revolves around an incident
that took place on 11.03.2007 around 07.00 p.m. It is
alleged that the accused persons gathered near Attikunte
Cross forming an unlawful assembly being armed with
clubs, chopper, long and iron rod. Their purported
intention was to harm PW18 - R. Manjunath severely.
Accused No.1 assaulted PW18 - Manjunath using an iron
rod, while accused No.2 attacked him with a chopper.
Accused No.3 assaulted him with an iron rod and accused
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
No.5 assaulted him with long object on his head. The
accused made a deliberate attempt to cause harm to
PW18 - Manjunath. PW2 - R. Narayanaswamy tried to
intervene, but was also assaulted by accused No.5 using
his hand. PW6 - Gopinatha also stepped in and faced
attacks from accused Nos.6 and 7 with a club, while
accused No.8 used his fist against PW6 - Gopinatha.
Accused Nos.9 and 10 inflicted injuries on PW2 - Nareppa
by attacking him with clubs. Furthermore, the accused
individuals directed abusive language, "holaya nanna
makkale" towards Narayanaswamy, R.Narayanaswamy
and Gopinatha. As a result of this incident, PW1 -
D.Ramappa was notified and arranged for a vehicle to
transport the injured first to General Hospital in
Srinivasapura and then to Jalappa Hospital in Kolar.
3. In the light of above circumstances, a complaint was
lodged at the Srinivasapura Police Station resulting in
registration of case under Crime No.53/2007. The
accused persons identified as accused Nos.1 to 10, were
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
charged with the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 read in conjunction
with Section 149 of IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(x) and
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, commonly known as
the SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector
of Police from Mulbagilu Police, Kolar District, filed charge
sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 10. The charges
encompassed the alleged commission of offences as
described in Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326
and 307 IPC read in conjunction with Section 149,
alongside Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)
Act. Following the filing of charge sheet, the charges were
framed and the accused persons pleaded not guilty,
opting to face trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
20 witnesses as PW1 to PW20 and marked 15 documents
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
at Exs.P-1 to P-15 and 22 material objects were marked
as MO1 to MO22.
6. Following the conclusion of trial, the incriminating
evidence against the accused persons was put to them and
all the accused denied the incriminating evidence but
chose not to lead any defence evidence. But during the
course of cross-examination of PW3 and PW4, 2
documents are marked as Exs.D-1 and D-2.
7. The Special Court after hearing the arguments was of
the opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution was
insufficient to convict the accused of the offences charged
and that the prosecution had failed to successfully bring
home its case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such,
acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offences. The
impugned judgment was passed on 11.06.2009.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the
State has preferred an appeal before this Court in
Crl.A.No.79/2010. The same was allowed by this Court as
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
per the order dated 28.01.2014 and the case was remitted
to the trial court for disposal in accordance with the law.
The trial court was also directed to issue witness summons
to PW18 (CW2), permit the prosecution to examine him in
chief and also permit the defence to cross-examine him.
After remittal of this case, the trial court recorded the
evidence of PW18. Thereafter, the statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the evidence of PW18 was
recorded and on hearing the arguments on both sides, the
trial court acquitted the accused for the alleged
commission of offences as per judgment dated
01.03.2016.
9. Again aggrieved by the same, the State is before
this Court seeking to set aside the order of acquittal dated
01.03.2016 and for conviction of the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
10. Sri.K.S.Abhijith, the learned High Court Government
Pleader reiterated the grounds of appeal and strongly
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
emphasized the flaws present in the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Special
Judge. It was argued that the said judgment and order
ran contrary to both the applicable law and the factual
circumstances of the case, as well as the evidence on
record.
10.1 It was contended that the learned Special Judge
failed to duly appreciate the testimonies of the witnesses
namely, PW2 to PW8. Despite the presence of injured
witnesses, their evidence was not subjected to a proper
and comprehensive scrutiny. Furthermore, it was argued
that any minor discrepancies regarding the transportation
of injured parties to the hospital would not undermine the
reliability and trustworthiness of their testimonies.
10.2 The ocular evidence presented in the case finds direct
corroboration from the medical evidence, thereby
establishing a robust evidentiary framework.
Notwithstanding the presence of multiple eyewitnesses,
who testified to the incident, the trial court displayed a
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
failure in properly appreciating their testimonies, resulting
in a clear miscarriage of justice. Upon a meticulous
reconsideration of the evidence furnished by PW18, the
trial court issued the impugned judgment of acquittal.
However, it is contended that the trial court's inadequate
appreciation of the entire body of evidence on record, in a
holistic and objective manner, renders the impugned
judgment of acquittal legally unsustainable.
10.3 The State relied upon the judgment in the case of
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. KASHIRAO AND OTHERS
reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4492 wherein it is held that
"the evidence of assaulted prosecution witnesses where
evidence was reliable and cogent can't be discarded
merely because there was some animosity between the
said eyewitnesses and the accused persons", to
substantiate its argument that the trial court considered
the civil dispute and the related animosity to pass acquittal
judgment. On all these grounds, the State sought for
allowing this appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
11. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the
respondents contends that there was a notable
discrepancy in the actions of the police regarding the
alleged offences. It is argued that despite receiving the
initial information about the cognizable offences on
11.03.2007 at 09.15 p.m., the police did not register a
case based on this information. It is further pointed out
that PW1 is not an eyewitness to the incident and the
complaint lodged with the police, marked as Ex.P-1, was
solely based on the information provided by PW4 -
Anjamma. Moreover, it is submitted that Deputy
Superintendent of Police - PW20 received a phone
intimation from PW19 on the same day at 09:30 p.m.
regarding the Galata incident in the vicinity of Attikunte
Cross. Responding promptly, PW20 rushed to the scene
where three injured individuals were admitted to
R.L.Jalappa Hospital. However, it is significant to note that
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
PW20 arrived at R.L.Jalappa Hospital at 10:15 p.m., while
the official complaint was received by the police through
PW19 at 01:00 p.m. on a subsequent day. The case was
registered as Crime No.53/2007 for the alleged offences
and the FIR was submitted to the Court on 12.03.2007 at
10:45 a.m.
11.1 The defence argues that the prosecution has not
provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing
the complaint, a crucial aspect that was duly
acknowledged and appreciated by the trial court as
evidenced by the testimony of PW20.
11.2 Ex.P-10 - wound certificate of the alleged injured
Manjunatha reveals that the injured was admitted to the
hospital with the history of assault by unidentified people
on 11.03.2007 at 08.00 p.m. with rods, stones and
machu. Ex.P-9 - wound certificate of Narayanaswamy @
Nareppa, S/o.Ramappa reveals that the injured was
admitted to the hospital with the history of assault by
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
Srinivasareddy and said Babu and Srinivasareddy were not
arrayed as accused persons by the prosecution.
11.3 PW17 - Dr. Leela Sampathkumar, the medical officer
who testified, stated in her evidence that PW2 arrived at
the hospital on 11.03.2007 at 08.00 p.m. with a reported
history of assault by Babu, Rajashekar Reddy and
Srinivasareddy. However, this particular detail was not
explicitly mentioned in the wound certificate. Notably, the
injured party did not disclose the names of the alleged
perpetrators to the medical officer and the incident itself
occurred during the night hours. It is crucial to highlight
that none of the witnesses provided testimony regarding
the source of light available to identify the accused
individuals. Furthermore, the investigating officer has not
provided any explanation regarding the lighting conditions
during the incident. This observation raises questions
regarding the clarity and reliability of identification, as the
lack of illumination might have potentially affected the
witnesses' ability to accurately discern the accused
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
persons. In the absence of any explanation from the
investigating officer regarding the lighting conditions,
further adds to the concerns raised in this regard.
11.4 PW4 - Anjamma, a member of Grama Panchayat,
who witnessed this incident as per the case of the
prosecution, was present in the hospital, however, she has
not lodged a complaint before the police, though the police
came to the hospital at 9.30 p.m.
11.5 All the injured witnesses in the present case are
interested witnesses and they acknowledge the enmity
between them and the accused persons. The trial court
astutely assessed the demeanor of these injured witnesses
during the course of their testimonies. It is worth noting
that PW18 - Manjunatha appeared before the Court on
03.12.2008, but declined to provide evidence seeking a
two-month adjournment. The trial court duly recorded
this submission and discharged him accordingly.
Subsequently, on 09.04.2009, as per the directives of the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.517/2009 and Crl.
Misc. Petition No.522/2009, the Court recorded the cross-
examination of PW18 without conducting the examination-
in-chief. However, in Crl.A.No.79/2010 dated 28.01.2014,
the trial court was granted permission to record the
examination-in-chief of PW18. Thereafter, the cross-
examination was recorded on 05.07.2014.
11.6 Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight that on
07.10.2008, PW1 - Ramappa filed a petition before the
Chief Justice of High Court seeking transfer of Special
Case (SC) No.26/2007 from the jurisdiction of the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, to an
alternate Court citing allegations of corruption against the
Presiding Officer. However, the High Court did not
entertain the petition, finding the allegations to be
unsubstantiated. The conduct exhibited by these witnesses
not only raises doubts regarding their veracity while
deposing before the Court, but also indicates the
unfounded nature of allegations levelled against the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
Presiding Officer. It is also to be noted that to decline to
adduce evidence is an offence under IPC. Even by
throwing the allegation of corruption against the Presiding
Officer, he tried to manipulate the entire proceeding of
trial. Therefore, their evidence cannot be believed and
there is no cogent, corroborative, trustworthy and
believable evidence and also there are material omissions
and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses.
Considering all these aspects, the trial court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law
and facts and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment. On all these grounds, the
respondents sought for dismissal of this appeal.
12. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the appellant-State has made
out grounds to interfere with the
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
impugned judgment of acquittal passed
against the respondents?
(2) What order?
13. Our finding to the above points are as under:
(1) Negative
(2) As per final order
RE POINT NO.1:
14. Totally 25 witnesses have been cited in the charge
sheet. Out of them, 20 witnesses were examined as PW1
to PW20. CWs.16, 18 and 19 have been given up by the
prosecution. PW1 - D. Ramappa - complainant, PW18 -
R.Manjunatha, PW3 - R. Narayanaswamy, PW6 -
Gopinatha @ Gopi, PW2 - Narayanaswamy @ Nareppa are
the injured and eye witnesses. PW4 - Smt.Anjamma, PW7
- Smt. Rukminiyamma, PW10 - Muniyamma, PW5 -
Gowtham, PW8 - Kumari Shravani, PW9 - Shivaraja, PW11
- Anjappa, PW12 - Nagaraj, are the eye witnesses to this
incident. PWs.3, 7, 9, 11, 12 & 18 are the independent
witnesses, PWs.9 & 11 have not supported the
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
prosecution. PWs.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are from the
same family and are interested witnesses. The prime
thing is that the evidence of all the witnesses is indexing
the assault on PW18.
DELAY IN FILING THE COMPLAINT:
15. The trial court after careful consideration of various
factors, including the delay in filing the complaint, the
existence of previous ill-will and enmity between the
prosecution witnesses and the accused persons,
inconsistent testimonies, substantial omissions, material
contradictions, and the lack of cogent, believable, and
trustworthy evidence, has arrived at the conclusion that
the prosecution has not successfully established the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In the light of aforementioned context, we have to
undertake a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidentiary
material on record with the sole objective of ascertaining
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
the correctness of the judgment pronounced by the trial
court.
17. As per the prosecution's case as documented in Ex.P-
1, the alleged incident occurred on 11.03.2007 at 07.00
p.m. However, as recorded by PW19 - J. Goutham, Police
Sub-Inspector, the complaint was not filed until
12.03.2007 at 01.00 p.m. at R.L.Jalappa Hospital.
Subsequently, based on this complaint, PW19 registered
the case under Crime No.53/2007 and submitted the FIR
to the Court. Although the FIR, which was received by the
learned Magistrate on 12.03.2007 at 10.45 a.m. is not
marked as an exhibit, which discloses a delay of
approximately 7 hours in filing the complaint.
Furthermore, there is an additional delay of around 10
hours in submitting the FIR to the Court, despite
Srinivasapura police station being situated at a mere
distance of 15 kilometers from R.L. Jalappa Hospital.
Notably, the FIR indicates that the Station House Officer
(SHO) despatched the FIR to the Court at 03.00 a.m. on
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
12.03.2007; however, it was not submitted to the Court
until 10.45 a.m. Moreover, Column No.8 of the FIR, which
pertains to the reasons for the delay in reporting by the
complainant/informant is left unfilled. Surprisingly,
neither PW19 - IO nor PW20 - Deputy Commissioner of
Police provided any explanation regarding the delay in
filing the complaint or despatching the FIR to the Court
during their testimonies.
18. That in view of Rule 7 of SC/ST (POA) Rules, 2015 is
as under:
"INVESTIGATING OFFICER (1) An offence
committed under the Act shall be investigated by a
police officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer
shall be appointed by the State
Government/Director General of
Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into
account his past experience, sense of ability and
justice to perceive the implications of the case and
investigate it along with right lines within the
shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer
so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the
investigation on top priority within thirty days and
submit the report to the Superintendent of Police
who in turn will immediately forward the report to
the Director General of Police of the State
Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the
Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government,
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
Director of Prosecution the officer in-charge of
Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall
review by the end of every quarter the position of
all investigations done by Investigation Officer."
19. The Deputy Superintendent of Police is the
competent person to investigate the matter. PW20-
Deputy Superintendent of Police has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 11.03.2007 at 09.30 p.m.,
when he was in his Office received a phone message from
PW19, immediately, rushed to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar
at 10.15 p.m., by that time, PWs.18, 2, 3 and 6 were
taking treatment at the hospital as inpatients. PW1 was
also in the police station, by that time, PW19 came to the
hospital and he instructed to PW19 to register the case by
receiving complaint from the concerned persons. Though
PW20 - Deputy Superintendent, who is competent to
investigate the case under SC/ST (POA) Rules, 2015, he
has not received the complaint from PW1, who was
present at the relevant point of time, instead, instructed
PW19 to receive the complaint from the concerned for the
reasons best known to IO. The prosecution without
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
offering any proper explanation in filing the complaint,
despatched the FIR to the Court. Admittedly, there is a
previous enmity between PW1 and the accused, it is
admitted by PW1 that prior to filing this case he had
lodged a criminal complaint against this accused before
the same Court, which was ended with acquittal. Further
PW1 admitted that he preferred to file a civil suit against
Venkataswamy Gowda in O.S.No.73/1992. Since the
prosecution has failed to explain the delay in filing the
complaint and considering the facts and circumstances, we
are of the considered opinion that trial court has rightly
observed that delay in filing the complaint will create
reasonable doubt as to the alleged incident.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
20. As per the prosecution's case, PW3-R.
Narayanaswamy, PW6-Gopinatha (also known as Gopi),
and PW2-Narayanaswamy (also known as Nareppa) are
both injured parties and eyewitnesses to the incident in
question. The wound certificate marked as Ex.P-6 pertains
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
to the injuries sustained by PW6 - Gopinatha. In his
testimony, PW6 stated that he was assaulted by accused
No.6 with a club on his right hand, resulting in injuries to
his fingers. He further claimed that accused No.7
assaulted him on the head with a club, while accused No.8
assaulted him all over his body using his hands. However,
Ex.P-6 - wound certificate does not mention the names of
specific accused individuals (Nos.6 to 9), who allegedly
assaulted PW6. Additionally, the time and place of the
assault are not indicated in the wound certificate.
21. During his testimony, PW13 - Dr. Ambarish, who
treated the injured PW6, stated that on 11.03.2007 at
10.00 p.m., D.Ramappa brought PW6 to him with a history
of assault by a group of individuals at around 07.30 p.m.
Upon examination, Dr.Ambarish found the injuries
mentioned in Ex.P-6, which he classified as simple in
nature. Notably, Dr. Ambarish did not provide the names
of accused who allegedly assaulted PW6 in his testimony.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
Furthermore, he did not state whether he inquired about
the history of the assault during his examination of PW6.
22. Additionally, there is another wound certificate
marked as Ex.P-7, which pertains to PW3 -
R.Narayanaswamy. Ex.P-7 reveals that
R.Narayanaswamy, aged 38 years and an inhabitant of
Attikunte, was brought to the hospital with a history of
assault on 11.03.2007, accompanied by PW1-D.Ramappa.
Dr.Ambarish (PW13) testified that he examined PW3 and
found the injuries mentioned in Ex. P-7. However, the
names of accused are not mentioned in Ex.P-7. During
the testimony of PW13, he did not explain why he did not
include the names of the accused, who allegedly assaulted
PW3 in the wound certificate. PW13 further stated that
PW3 was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for 21
days, leading him to classify the injuries sustained by PW3
as grievous in nature. However, the prosecution has not
presented any case sheets, discharge summaries or x-rays
of the injured to substantiate the claim that PW3 was
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
admitted to the hospital for a duration of 21 days. In the
absence of such crucial documentary evidence, it becomes
challenging to accept the assertion that PW3 was
hospitalized for 21 days following an assault by the
accused.
23. Ex.P-9 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW2 -
Nareppa, which discloses that he was admitted to the
hospital with the history of assault by Babu and
Srinivasareddy at 08.00 p.m. on 11.03.2007 with rod.
Dr.Leela Sampathkumar - PW17, who has examined this
injured has deposed that on 11.03.2007 at 08.15 p.m.
PW2-Nareppa came to the hospital with the history of
assault by Babu and Srinivasareddy at 08.00 p.m. with rod
and she examined the injured and found the injuries as
per Ex.P-9, which is simple in nature. Srinivasareddy is
not the accused in this case, but the accused Babu is
shown as accused No.2 - Venkataramana Reddy @ Babu.
PW17 has not explained anything for why she has not
shown the name of Rajashekhara Reddy in the wound
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
certificate. The wound certificate is a public document, as
it is maintained by the hospital authorities. If really PW17
had shown the name of Rajashekhara Reddy in the
concerned register, she ought to have shown the same in
Ex.P-9 - wound certificate, but she has not done so.
During the course of cross examination of PW17, she has
admitted that she has not mentioned the name of accused
who have assaulted the injured in the accident register.
This admission made by PW17 reveals that though the
names of accused Babu and Srinivasareddy is not shown
in the accident register, subsequently she deposed their
names along with another accused. Therefore, evidence of
PW17 will give rise to suspicion as to the act of the
accused.
24. The prime injured witness PW18 - Manjunatha was
admitted to the hospital on 11.03.2007 at 08.40 p.m. with
a history of assault by unidentified persons using rods,
stones and machu and Ex.P-10 is the wound certificate
issued by Dr.Leela Sampathkumar (PW17). However, she
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
admitted that she did not mention the names of accused in
the accident register. Although PW17 mentioned in the
wound certificate that PW18 sustained injuries owing to
assault by unidentified people, later she testified that
PW18 sustained injuries with a history of assault by
Rajashekhara Reddy, Babu, Srinivasareddy and others
using iron rod, stones and machu. This inconsistency
between her testimony and the contents of Ex.P-10 raises
doubt. If PW18 had indeed sustained injuries with a
history of assault by Rajashekhara Reddy, Babu,
Srinivasareddy and others, it would have been expected
for PW17, as a responsible medical officer, to mention
their names in the accident register. However, she issued
a wound certificate stating that PW18 sustained injuries
with a history of assault by unidentified people. It is only
during her testimony, without any substantial basis, that
she mentioned the names of certain accused individuals.
This cannot be considered reliable and it can be inferred
that her inclusion of the accused names in her testimony
was influenced by the investigating officer or interested
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
witnesses. Therefore, there is no compelling, corroborative
and consistent evidence against the accused regarding the
injuries sustained by PWs.18, 3, 6 and 2.
OMISSIONS & CONTRADICTIONS:
25. In the case of LALLU MANJHI VS. STATE OF
JHARKHAND reported in AIR 2003 SC 854, the
Supreme Court has laid down certain factors to be kept in
mind while assessing the testimony of a witness as
follows: "The Law of Evidence does not require any
particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of
a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single
witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into
three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly
unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable, nor wholly
unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no
difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the
single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of
cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony,
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a
single witness." According to Ex. P-1 - complaint filed by
PW1 - D. Ramappa, the accused K.Rajashekhara Reddy @
Chikkareddy, Venugopalareddy, A.C.Ramanjaneyareddy @
Hanumantareddy, A.V. Venkatareddy @ Reddeppa,
A.V.Raghunathareddy, Anilkumar, Sriramareddy,
Nagarajareddy, Ambareesha, and Anjaneyareddy (accused
Nos.1 to 10) assaulted his children Manjunatha,
Narayanaswamy and his elder brother's son Gopinatha
with machu, club and stones. This information was
conveyed to him by his wife PW4-Anjamma through a
phone call. Immediately, he took a vehicle and
transported them to the hospital for treatment. The
examination-in-chief of PW1 was recorded on 16.02.2008.
However, at the request of counsel for the accused, the
cross-examination of this witness was deferred. On
20.11.2008, the witness was present in Court but refused
to give evidence, resulting in his discharge from providing
testimony. Subsequently, on 09.04.2009 the cross-
examination of PW1 was recorded. Although PW1 took all
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
the injured persons to the hospital, he did not disclose the
names of accused Nos.1 to 10 to the medical officer. Even
though PW1 was with PW3 to PW6 in the hospital, while
giving the history of assault they did not give the names of
accused, instead they stated that people in a mob
assaulted them.
26. PW2 - Narayanaswamy @ Nareppa testified in his
evidence that accused No.1 assaulted him with an iron rod
on the left side of his head. Accused No.2 attacked his
head with a club and when accused No.2 attempted to
assault him with a machu, he defended himself and
received injuries on his hand, resulting in the cutting of his
left little finger. As he tried to intervene to rescue another
person, accused No.10 struck him on the back with a club,
causing him to fall down. When he regained
consciousness, he found himself in R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Kolar. However, this witness was not tendered for cross-
examination. Despite the order passed by the High Court
in Crl.P.No.517/2009, which required his cross-
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
examination, it was not conducted and the Presiding
Officer recorded this fact. Therefore, due to incomplete
nature of his evidence and the want of cross-examination,
it may not be beneficial to the prosecution's case.
27. PW3 - R. Narayanaswamy, an injured eyewitness,
provided his testimony stating that accused No.1
instigated other accused to assault him. Accused No.5
struck him with a long object on his left neck and jaw,
while accused No.4 - Venkatareddy hit him in the tooth.
Accused No.1 gave a blow to PW18 - Manjunath's head
with an iron rod and accused No.2 struck him on the right
jaw and face with the same weapon. Subsequently,
accused Nos.1 and 2 instigated the other accused, with
accused No.2 attempting to assault PW18 - Manjunatha
with a chopper aimed at his neck. PW18 - Manjunatha
defended himself, resulting in severing his left little finger.
Accused No.5 also struck Manjunatha with a long object on
his left shoulder and accused No.3 kicked him with his leg
and assaulted him with chappals on his chest. Accused
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
No.9 assaulted PW18 - Manjunatha on the left side of his
forehead, while accused No.10 delivered blows with a club
all over his body. PW6 - Gopinatha also sustained injuries
from the club. Accused No.8 instructed the other accused
to flee the scene, after which accused Nos.5 and 10
discarded the long object and club before making their
escape. The evidence of PW3 was recorded on 26.03.2008
and at the request of accused counsel, cross-examination
was postponed. On 20.11.2008, it was submitted to the
Court that an application for transfer of the case had been
filed and until its resolution, PW3 would not provide
further evidence. Consequently, the Court discharged him.
However, on 09.04.2009 he was summoned again for
cross-examination. Considering the circumstances
surrounding the delayed testimony of PW3, the defence
may rely on the maxim "Fiat justitiaruatcaelum" (let
justice be done though the heavens fall) to emphasize the
importance of procedural fairness and adherence to
established rules. Ultimately, the Court will have to
evaluate the consistency and credibility of PW3's
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
testimony, guided by the maxim and the principle of "in
dubio pro reo" (when in doubt, decide in favour of the
accused).
28. On perusal of evidence of PWs.3 to 8 and 10, it can
be observed that accused threw away long chopper, clubs
on the spot and left. However, the story of the
prosecution is that they recovered some of the weapons,
on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused No.2.
The evidence regarding recovery of weapons by PWs.3 to
8 and 10 is contradictory to the story of prosecution. In
these circumstances, the story of prosecution that they
recovered weapons near haystack of Ramareddy is
unbelievable. The independent witnesses, PWs.9 and 11
did not support and were treated as hostile witnesses by
the prosecution. PW4 another eye witness, provided her
evidence regarding the assault incident. She stated that
accused Nos.1 and 2 had assaulted Manjunatha with an
iron rod on his head. Accused No.5 attempted to assault
PW3 with a long object and when Manjunatha tried to
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
defend himself, he sustained an injury to his left little
finger. Accused No.4 struck PW3 on his face, while
accused No.6 assaulted Gopinatha with a club, resulting in
injuries to his head and fingers. Accused No.7 attacked
PW6 - Gopinatha with a club and accused Nos.9 and 10
assaulted PW2 - Nareppa with a club as well. Accused
No.8 struck PW18 - Manjunatha on his chest with a boot
leg. It is worth noting that the defence previously
requested the deferral of cross-examination on the day of
recording the examination-in-chief and subsequently, PW4
refused to give evidence due to petition filed seeking
transfer of the case. However, she later appeared for
cross-examination on 09.04.2009.
29. PW6 - Gopinatha, PW7 - Rukimini/wife of PW3, PW8
were with PW18 when the alleged incident started. Their
evidence contradicts the evidence adduced by the other
witnesses. The contradictory statements creates doubt
with regard to the veracity of prosecution story. PW10 -
Muniyamma is the wife of PW6, PW5 - Gowtham and PW8
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
- Shravani are the child witnesses said to be eye witnesses
belonged to same family.
30. PW9 and PW11 said to be the eye witnesses, have
not supported to the case of prosecution even in cross
examination made by public prosecutor with the
permission of the Court and he has categorically denied
the statement said to have been recorded by the IO under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as per Exs.P-4 and P-5.
31. In the present case, the careful scrutiny of the
witnesses' testimonies reveals material omissions and
contradictions in the evidence given by the injured
witnesses and the eye witnesses. Additionally, the medical
evidence appears to be inconsistent with the testimonies
of the witnesses. These discrepancies raise doubt about
the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented by
the prosecution. Applying the maxim "In dubio pro reo,"
the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record. Recognizing the existence of doubt due to material
omissions and contradictions, the Court has come to the
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
conclusion that the evidence presented by the prosecution
fails to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Upon re-examining the evidence, similar material
omissions and contradictions have been elicited, further
contributing to the doubts surrounding the case. In
accordance with the maxim, when doubts persist about
the actions of accused, it becomes imperative for the
Court to resolve those doubts in favor of the accused.
Therefore, in light of principle "In dubio pro reo," the trial
court's conclusion regarding the doubt surrounding the
actions of accused is reinforced by the presence of
material omissions and contradictions in the evidence.
The maxim emphasizes that when uncertainty exists, the
Court should err on the side of the accused, ensuring a fair
and just outcome.
ENMITY BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND THE
WITNESSES:
32. Based on the information provided, it is evident from
Ex.P-1 - complaint and the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4, 6, 7,
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
10 and 18 that there is a longstanding land dispute
between the complainant's family and the accused family.
Additionally, there is political rivalry between the two
families. The witnesses have openly acknowledged that
the accused belong to the JDS Party, while they belong to
the Congress Party. It is worth noting that PW4 -
Anjamma is a member of the Grama Panchayat elected
from the Congress Party. These facts and materials
presented before the Court clearly establish the existence
of a land dispute spanning over 30 years and political
rivalry between the families involved. This information is
crucial as it sheds light on the background and context of
the case. The presence of a long-standing land dispute
and political rivalry between the complainant's family and
the accused family, may have implications on the
reliability and credibility of the testimonies of witnesses. It
is essential for the Court to consider these factors when
evaluating the evidence presented by the prosecution.
These factors may raise questions about the objectivity
and impartiality of the witnesses and require careful
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
scrutiny during the trial. Therefore, the information
regarding the land dispute and political rivalry provides
important context and background to the case, which may
be significant in evaluating the evidence and considering
the potential biases of the witnesses involved.
33. The learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted his arguments that the evidence of prosecution
witnesses cannot be believed, they are all interested
witnesses taking revenge against the accused and they
have foisted a false case against these accused. They
have tried to manipulate the legal proceedings for the
reason that in the cross examination of PW18 it was
suggested that Crime Nos.48/1984, 81/1994, 59/1995,
3/1997, 109/1998, 79/2003, 176/2004, 61/2006, have
been registered against him, but the same has been
denied by him. He also denied that he was in rowdy list
prepared by the police. During the course of cross
examination of PW20 - Deputy Superintendent of Police he
has clearly admitted that PW18 is in rowdy list prepared
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
by Srinivasapura Police Station. Further stated that many
cases have been registered against him. This conduct of
PW18 reveals that inference can be drawn against him
that his evidence is unreliable and he has given false
evidence before the Court.
34. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the
respondents has brought to the notice of this Court that
though the prosecution witnesses have not filed any
transfer petition before the concerned Court, they have
stated before the Court that they have filed transfer
petition before the High Court to transfer this case to any
alternate Court. After examination-in-chief, PWs.1, 3 and
4 have refused to tender their evidence for cross
examination. PW18 - Manjunatha has refused to give
evidence after taking oath before the Court, which is an
offence under Section 179 of IPC, but the trial court has
not initiated any proceedings in this regard, instead it has
discharged the above witnesses. Thereafter, after
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
remanding the case by this Court, the above witnesses
have given their evidence before the Court.
35. Based on the information provided, it is evident that
a letter dated 21.11.2008 addressed by the Assistant
Registrar of the High Court of Karnataka to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge of Kolar, regarding the transfer
of case Spl.C.No.26/2007, is present in the records. This
letter is based on a representation dated 07.10.2008
submitted by D.Ramappa, who is PW1 in the current case.
The representation alleges misconduct by the Presiding
Officer - Sri.K.Shivaram, stating that he had received a
bribe from the accused and had favored them by not
allowing cross-examination intentionally. It is noteworthy
that the High Court of Karnataka did not take any action
against the Presiding Officer based on the letter and
D.Ramappa also did not pursue the matter further. This
conduct raises doubt about the veracity and reliability of
the complainant's representation and the testimonies of
other witnesses. Considering this information, it is
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
apparent that the complainant - D.Ramappa made false
representations against the Presiding Officer without any
substantial basis. This behavior casts doubt on the
credibility of the complainant and other witnesses who
have provided exaggerated and false evidence regarding
the alleged assault by the accused. Their conduct
indicates an ulterior motive or vested interest, suggesting
that they may not be reliable or trustworthy as
prosecution witnesses. Based on these circumstances, an
adverse inference can be drawn against the material
prosecution witnesses, as their interests and actions raise
doubt about the truthfulness and believability of their
testimonies. Therefore, the Court can reasonably question
the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence provided
by the complainant and other witnesses, considering their
conduct and the absence of any supportive actions or
consequences stemming from the allegations made
against the Presiding Officer.
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
36. In the case on hand, PW2 - Narayanaswamy is not
subjected to cross examination, PW3 is the son of PW1,
PW4 is the wife of PW1, PW5 is the son of PW3, PW1 is
also the paternal uncle of PW6, PW7 is the wife of PW3,
PW8 is the daughter of PW2, PW10 is the wife of PW6,
PW18 is the son of PW1. All these material prosecution
witnesses belong to same family of the complainant.
Admittedly, there has been enmity between the
complainant's family and accused for over 30 years. In
the circumstances, it is quite natural that the above
witnesses might have intended to harass the accused.
Accordingly, the above witnesses in their evidence before
the Court have stated as to the alleged act of the accused.
That there is no cogent, consistent and corroborative
evidence of above interested witnesses. Their evidence is
also not supported by the medical evidence. Under the
given set of circumstances, the evidence of prosecution
requires the evidence of independent witnesses. In the
case on hand, one of the independent witnesses - PW9 is
examined, but he has not supported to the case of the
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
prosecution. Even in his cross examination made by the
learned Public Prosecutor after treating him as hostile
witness with the permission of the Court, then also he has
categorically denied the statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. said to have been recorded by the IO, which is
marked as Ex.P-4. In the evidence of PW6, he has clearly
admitted that at the distance of 50-60 feet there are
houses of Ramareddy, Vemanna and Venkataswamy. He
has also admitted that at the time of alleged incident
many people were present near dairy. Further he has
admitted that at the time of incident 10 people were there
and they have witnessed the incident. PW10 -
Muniyamma has admitted that when she rushed to the
spot except the accused none were present. When some
of the independent witnesses have witnessed the incident,
the IO would have recorded the statement of said
witnesses, but he has not done so, none of the above
independent witnesses has been cited as witnesses. This
conduct of IO will create reasonable doubt as to the
alleged act of the accused.
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
37. The trial court has clearly observed in the impugned
judgment that the IO has not complied the mandatory
provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 100 of Cr.P.C.
while conducting mahazar and also MOs are not properly
seized in accordance with law.
38. With regard to the offences punishable under Section
3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act are concerned, in
Ex.P-1 it is stated that the accused have abused the
victims by referring their caste, but none of the witnesses
including PW1 has not whispered anything in this regard.
Only PW3 has stated that the accused abused him in foul
language by referring his caste. That evidence of PW3 has
not been corroborated by the other witnesses. Even PW3
has not stated before this Court that the accused
intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to
humiliate him in place within public view and none of the
independent witnesses has deposed before this Court that
the accused have abused PW3 by referring to his caste in
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
their presence. Even Ex.P-1 - complaint also does not
reveal that the accused abused PW3 and others by
referring to their caste in the presence of public.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no evidence
before the Court to attract the ingredients of alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x)
and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act.
39. After careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it
is clear that the trial court has properly appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. We
do not find any legal infirmities in the impugned judgment.
Viewed from any angle, this is not a fit case to interfere
with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, prosecution has
failed to make out grounds to interfere by this Court.
Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the negative.
RE. POINT NO.2:
40. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, we proceed
to pass the following:
- 45 -
NC: 2023:KHC:22591-DB
CRL.A No. 1809 of 2016
ORDER
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Registry is directed to transmit the
records along with the copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
