Karnataka High Court

Sri Raja @ Chapani vs State By K P Agrahara P S on 10 April, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                         -1-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:14766
                                                CRL.A No. 379 of 2012




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                      BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2012
             BETWEEN:

             1.    SRI RAJA @ CHAPANI
                   S/O. LATE NARAYANA SWAMY
                   AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                   RESIDENT OF NETHAJINAGAR
                   NEAR ARALI MARA
                   K P AGRAHARA
                   BANGALORE-560 023.
                                                         ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. P NEHRU., ADVOCATE)


             AND:

             1.    STATE BY K P AGRAHARA P S
                   BANGALORE.
Digitally                                              ...RESPONDENT
signed by    (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
LAKSHMI T
Location:
High Court        THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
of           SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DT.28.02.2012
Karnataka    PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-IX, BANGALORE IN
             S.C.NO.779/2011-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
             THE OFFENCES P/U/S 307 IPC.

                  THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
             DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:14766
                                          CRL.A No. 379 of 2012




                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and

Order dated 28.02.2012 and 20.03.2012 passed by the

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore in

SC No.779/2011.

2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has

convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for an offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay

fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the material

on record.

4. Charges were framed against accused No.1 for

offences punishable under Section 307 and 427 IPC,

against accused No.2 for the offence punishable under

Section 323 IPC and against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the

offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

5. It is the case of prosecution that on 02.11.2010

at about 9.40 p.m., near Sridurga Condiments,

Keshavanagara, Magadi Road, accused No.1 tried to stab

on the abdomen of CW2-Praveen Shetty with a knife and

when he tried to protect himself, sustained injury to his

right little finger. Further, accused No.1 caused damage

to the bottles kept in the shop by hitting with the stones

and caused loss to the tune of Rs.600/- to CW1-Ashok

Shetty, owner of the shop. It is the further case of

prosecution that accused No.2 voluntarily caused hurt to

CW2-Praveen Shetty by assaulting him with hands and

both accused Nos.1 and 2 intentionally insulted him and

gave provocation and thereby committed the charged

offences.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,

prosecution in all examined 07 witnesses and got marked

10 documents and 04 material objects.

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

7. The complainant is examined as PW1.

Complaint is marked as Ex.P1. PWs.2 and 3 are the panch

witnesses to Ex.P2-spot mahazar. PW4 is the scientific

officer who issued the report marked as Ex.P4, regarding

the blood stains found on the articles such as knife and

piece of cloth. PW5 is a witness to Ex.P5, under which the

knife was recovered from accused No.1. PW6 is the

Doctor, who examined the injured-CW2 and issued the

wound certificate-Ex.P6. PW7 is the PSI, who registered

the case and conducted investigation and filed the charge

sheet.

8. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that

the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled

against accused No.2, accordingly he has been acquitted.

Insofar as the appellant/accused No.1 is concerned, the

trial Court has relied on Ex.P1-complaint, evidence of PW1

and the medical evidence and came to the conclusion that

he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

However, insofar as Section 427 and 504 r/w 34 IPC, the

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

trial Court has found insufficient evidence against accused

No.1 and therefore, he has been acquitted of the said

charges.

9. In this case, the injured is one Praveen Shetty-

CW2. For the reasons best known, the prosecution has

not examined him. According to the prosecution, the

injured was working in a Bakery belonging to PW1-

complainant. On 02.11.2010, at about 9.40 p.m., both

accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the Bakery. Accused No.1

purchased cigarette and cake, but refused to pay for it.

When CW2-Praveen Shetty demanded money, accused

No.1 picked up quarrel with him and caused damage to

the three bottles which were kept in the shop, hitting it

with a stone. He removed a knife from his pant pocket

and tried to stab him on his abdomen. While trying to

avoid, CW2 sustained injuries to his right little finger. Then

the accused threatened him and went away.

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

10. The prosecution has projected PW1 as an

eyewitness to the incident. A perusal of his evidence goes

to show that at the time of incident he was in his house

which was situated about 20 feet away from the shop and

he came to the spot on hearing the commotion. In his

chief examination he has stated that the accused had

caused damage to the glass, abused Praveen Shetty in

filthy language and tried to stab him on his abdomen,

however, in the cross-examination he has stated that it is

the injured Praveen Shetty who informed him that the

accused have assaulted and broke the glass. A careful

perusal of his entire evidence goes to show that he is not a

witness to the incident in question. At the relevant point

of time, he was in his house and on hearing the

commotion he came near his shop and by that time the

incident was over.

11. The defence taken by the accused is that when

they were still eating the cake, CW2-Praveen Shetty

demanded them to pay and when the accused told him

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

that he will pay the amount, he pushed the accused, due

to which they fell on the glass and the glass broke. The

said suggestion put to PW1 has been denied by him. In

the statement of accused No.1 recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C., he has reiterated the said defence saying that

he was pushed by CW2, due to which, he fell on the

bottles.

12. PW6 is the Doctor who examined the injured-

CW2 and issued the wound certificate which is marked as

Ex.P6. As per Ex.P6, the injured sustained a lacerated

wound measuring 1 x 1 cms. over the tip of right little

finger and two incised wound 1 cm. each over the right

little finger. The said injuries are stated to be simple in

nature. It is difficult to believe that the said injuries are

caused with a knife as alleged by the prosecution. From

the evidence of PW6 it can be seen that the knife was not

shown to him to get an opinion as to whether the injuries

could be caused by the said weapon.

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

13. The prosecution has got examined PW5-panch

witness to prove recovery of knife from accused No.1,

however, the said witness has turned hostile to the case of

the prosecution.

14. It is contended by the learned High Court

Government Pleader that the knife and cloth were blood

stained and as per the report submitted by PW4, the blood

stains were of human origin of AB Group.

15. According to prosecution, when the accused

was arrested on 04.11.2010 he was still in possession of

the blood stained knife in his pocket, which is difficult to

believe. Firstly, the prosecution has not proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the knife was recovered at the

instance of the accused. PW5-panch witness to Ex.P5-

recovery of knife has not supported the prosecution case.

Further, PW1 has not identified the knife-MO4 as the one

used by accused No.1. Even though according to

prosecution, the blood stained cloth was seized, which was

handed over by PW1 to the Investigating Officer, it is not

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

forthcoming as to whether the said cloth belong to the

accused or the injured. In the absence of the evidence of

CW2-injured and in view of the discrepancies in the

evidence of PW1, it cannot be held that the prosecution

has been able to establish the guilt of the

appellant/accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is

therefore cannot be sustained. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed.

ii. The Judgment dated 28.02.2012 and Order on

Sentence dated 20.03.2012 passed by the Presiding

Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore, in

SC No.779/2011 is hereby set aside.

iii. Appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

iv. His bail bond shall stand cancelled.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14766

v. If any fine amount is deposited, the same shall

be refunded to the appellant.

vi. He is ordered to be set at liberty if not required

in other cases.