Karnataka High Court
Siddeshi @ Siddesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1089 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDESHI @ SIDDESHA
S/O JAYAPPA
AGED : 21 YEARS
AGRICULTURE
R/O CHITRAHALLI
GOLLARAHATTI
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
2. JAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
AGRICULTURE
3. SANGAPPA
S/O JAYAPPA
AGED 23 YEARS
AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI 4. SMT SHIVAMMA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O JAYAPPA
KARNATAKA
AGED 24 YEARS
HOUSEHOLD
5. MANJUNATH
S/O BASAVARAJA
AGED : 21 YEARS
AGRICULTURE
6. SANGAPPA
S/O ADADERU ALLAPPA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
CRL.A No. 1089 of 2012
ALL ARE R/O CHITRAHALLI
GOLLARAHATTI
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S B PAVIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLALKERE POLICE
CHITRADURGA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 7/9/2012 IN S.C. No.5/2011 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.144, 148,
324, 326 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 to 6 praying to
set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 07.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.5/2011 by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The
appellants - accused Nos.1 to 6 have been convicted for
the offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). They are sentenced to
pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence under Section
144 of IPC; fine of Rs.2,000/- each, for the offence under
Section 148 of IPC; fine of Rs.3,000/- each, for the offence
under Section 324 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the
offence under Section 326 of IPC. The appellants -
accused Nos.1 to 6 were acquitted of the offence under
Section 307 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as
under;
Accused No.2 possess certain extent of land adjacent
to the complainant's land and there is a bund in between
the two lands. Along side of this bund, there are number
of tamarind trees, upon which, both the parties are staking
their claim. In the evening of the day previous to
20.04.2010, the complainant and his brothers were
shedding the tamarind fruits from the trees and at that
time, accused No.2 took objection for that and prevented
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
them from reaping the fruits. Some altercation took place
at that time. On the next day i.e. on 20.04.2010 at about
12.00 Noon, the complainant, his wife Smt.Nirmala and his
brother Sri.Girish were doing some work in their garden.
At that time, accused No.1 who is the son of accused No.2
were seen cutting the branches of the tamarind tree and
therefore, the complainant went near the tree and took
objection for cutting the branches. Then accused No.1 got
down from the tree and by that time, the other accused
also came to that place having weapons like macchu, axe
and sticks in their hands. They all picked up quarrel with
the complainant and then, accused No.1 assaulted the
complainant (PW1) with macchu on his head. The other
accused also started assaulting him and seeing this
altercation, the complainant's brother Sri.Girish (PW2) and
father Sri.Eshwarappa (PW3) came to that place. The
accused assaulted them also with axe and sticks. Then the
complainant's wife Smt.Nirmala (PW4) and another
brother Sri.Mallikarjuna (PW5) came to that place for
rescuing them. The accused left that place by putting a life
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
threat to them. Thereafterwards, by telephoning to the
hospital, an ambulance was secured and the injured were
shifted to the hospital. The statement of the complainant
was recorded in the hospital at about 1.45 p.m. After
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the
accused persons. After committal, the Sessions Court
framed the charge against the appellants - accused Nos.1
to 6 for the offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and
326 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has
examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and
MOs.1 to 7. The statement of the accused came to be
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the
arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has formulated
the points for consideration and after appreciating the
evidence on record, convicted the appellants and passed
the sentence as noted above and acquitted them of the
offence under Section 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has
been challenged in this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -
State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that there was a quarrel between the accused persons and
PW1 on 19.04.2010 and for that, a complaint came to be
filed against the complainant and his family members and
therefore, to wreck vengeance, a false complaint came to
be filed on the next day ie., 20.04.2010. He further
contends that PW1 in his cross examination has stated
that he was alone, which is inconsistent with the contents
of Ex.P1 - complaint. PW1 has not whispered anything
about accused No.1 reaping the tamarind fruits in his
evidence, which has been stated in the complaint - Ex.P1.
PW1 has deposed that accused No.1 assaulted with
macchu on the left side of his head, but the wound
certificate - Ex.P4 reveal the cut lacerated wound over the
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
left parietal region, which is contrary to what has been
stated by PW1. PW2 - younger brother of PW1 has
deposed that the assault was made on the back of the
head of PW1, but the injury found on PW1 is over left
parietal region and no injury was found on the back of
head of PW1. PW3 has stated that accused No.1 has
assaulted on the head and chest of PW2 which is not
stated in the complaint or by PW2. Even though the
alleged incident has occurred on 20.04.2010, the seizure
was held on 21.04.2010 and the club, macchu, axe and
bamboo sticks were seized, stating that they were lying on
the spot. He further submits that even though in Ex.P6, it
is stated that the injury No.3 is grievous in nature, but no
document of Basaveshwara Hospital has been produced
and no X-ray report has been submitted. In Ex.P2 there is
a mention that macchu / axe has been given to the
Investigating Officer which was kept aside at the time of
preparing the mahazar. There are material contradictions
in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 with regard to the overt-acts
of each of the accused. The said contradictions are
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
material contradictions creating doubt in the case of the
prosecution. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
appellants prays for allowing the appeal and acquitting the
appellants.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent - State argued that the Trial Court on proper
appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly
convicted the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 6. He has
supported the reasons assigned by the Trial Court. He
further argued that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is sufficient
to convict the appellants for the offences leveled against
them. He contends that the contradictions in the evidence
of PWs.1 to 5 are not the material contradictions. On
these grounds, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. On the grounds made out and considering the
arguments advanced, the following point arises for my
consideration;
"Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting
the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 6 for the
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
offences under Sections 144, 148, 324 and 326
of IPC?"
8. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for
the following reasons;
P.W.3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he,
his children P.W.1 and P.W.2 and his daughter-in-law -
P.W.4 are attending the Court at Holalkere. He further
stated that the said case is registered as there was a
quarrel on the previous day when his children were
reaping tamarind fruits and one Smt. Lakshmamma wife of
accused No. 2 raised objection for that and she was
assaulted. He has stated that the said case is a false case
but he has admitted that they are attending the said
criminal case. Even P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
admitted that they are attending the criminal case which is
registered on the complaint filed by the accused. On
perusal of the entire evidence on record it is clear that
there is dispute with regard to tamarind tree situated in
the land between the accused persons and P.W.1 and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
P.W.3 and quarrels are going on in that regard. It is also
clear that on the previous day, i.e., 19.04.2010, with
regard to a quarrel one Lakshmamma wife of accused No.
2 had filed a complaint against P.W.1 to P.W.4 and a
criminal case is registered against them. The incident in
the case is said to have occurred on next day, i.e., on
20.04.2010. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
appellants that as there was a quarrel, on the complaint
filed by wife of accused No. 2 against P.W.1 to P.W.4 on
the previous day, i.e., 19.04.2010, a false case came to be
registered against the appellant Nos. 1 to 6 on the next
day, i.e., 20.04.2010.
9. P.W.1 has filed complaint as per Ex.P.1. As per the
averments of complaint Ex.P.1, accused No. 1 - Siddesh
had climbed the tamarind tree situated on the bund and
he was cutting the branches for food to his sheep and
P.W.1 went near the tamarind tree and asked him why he
was cutting the branches of the tamarind tree and at that
time accused Nos.2 to 6 who were nearby came together
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
holding weapons. P.W.1 in his evidence has not sated
anything with regard to the said aspect but he has stated
that accused No. 1 - Siddesh, at about 1.00 pm, on
20.04.2010, when he was working in his land came there
and tried to assault him with machhu and along with him
accused No. 2 had come and thereafter one after the other
accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 came there. P.W.2 has stated in
his evidence as stated in Ex.P.1 - complaint regarding
accused No. 1 cutting the branches of tamarind tree and
P.W.2 going and objecting for the same. P.W.3 has
deposed that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had come to cut the
tamarind tree and at that time P.W.1 and P.W.2 arrived
and quarrel took place. Therefore, in that regard there is a
contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
averments of complaint - Ex.P.1.
10. P.W.1 has deposed that accused No. 3 assaulted
P.W.2 - Girisha with axe on his left leg. P.W.2 - Girisha
has deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted him with
machhu on back of head of PW.1 and on his right leg.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
P.W.3 has deposed that accused No. 1 dashed his head to
the chest of P.W.2 - Girisha and he fell down. P.W.4 has
deposed that accused Nos. 3 and 5 have assaulted P.W.2
- Girisha with club. P.W.5 has not stated anything with
regard to assault on P.W.2 - Girisha.
11. P.W.1 has deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted
P.W.2 on the left leg with machhu. P.W.2 has deposed that
accused No. 1 assaulted on the back of head of PW.1 with
a machhu. P.W.3 has deposed that accused No.3 assaulted
P.W.1 on his head with machhu. P.W.4 has deposed that
accused No. 1 assaulted P.W.1 with a machhu on his head
and on his body. P.W.1 himself has not stated anything
regarding accused No. 1 assaulting him on his back and on
his body. P.W.5 has deposed that accused No. 1 got down
from the tamarind tree and along with other accused
started assaulting P.W.1 and therefore there is
contradiction with regard to assault on P.W.1 by accused
No. 1 or by accused No. 3.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
assaulted P.W.3 on his left hand with a kanige. P.W.2 has
deposed that accused Nos. 3 and 6 have assaulted P.W.3
on his left hand. P.W.3 has deposed that accused No. 2
assaulted him with club on his left hand. P.W.4 has
deposed that accused No. 5 assaulted P.W.3 with a
bamboo stick. P.W.5 has deposed that accused No.3
assaulted P.W.3 with bamboo stick on his left wrist.
Therefore, there is inconsistent evidence and there are
contradictions with regard to who assaulted P.W.3.
13. P.W.4 has deposed that accused No. 4 dragged her.
P.W.2 has deposed that accused No.4 held hairs of P.W.4
and dragged her. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have not stated
anything with regard to accused No. 4 dragging P.W.4.
14. As per Ex.P.4 - wound certificate P.W.1 has
sustained cut lacerated wound over left parietal region.
P.W.1 has stated that even accused No. 1 assaulted him
on left side of his head. P.W.2 has stated that accused No.
1 assaulted P.W.1 with machhu on the back of his head.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
P.W.4 has stated that accused No.1 assaulted P.W.3 with
machhu on his head. Therefore, the injury found in Ex.P.4
- wound certificate is not corresponding to the part of
head as deposed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4.
15. In Ex.P.5 - wound certificate it is stated that P.W.2
has sustained injury on his right shin (right leg). P.W.1
has stated that accused No.3 assaulted P.W.2 with an axe
on left leg. But, injury is on the right leg. Therefore, there
is contradiction in the overt act alleged and injury as
stated in Ex.P.5 - wound certificate.
16. P.W.1 to P.W.5 are close relatives. In view of the
above contradictions and as there was earlier incident on
19.04.2010 and wife of accused No.2 filing complaint
against P.W.1 to P.W.4 the alleged incident on 20.04.2010
appears to be doubtful. The prosecution has failed to
prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused
persons assaulted P.W.1 to P.W.3. Therefore, benefit of
doubt requires to be extended to the accused persons and
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4533
they are required to be acquitted for the offence for which
they are convicted.
17. In the result, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 07.09.2012 passed in
S.C. No. 5/2011 is set aside.
(iii) The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 6 are
acquitted for offence under Sections
144, 148, 324 and 326 of IPC read with
Section 149 of IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH/LRS
