Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Bhavan Nithin Patil on 2 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2337
CRL.A No. 100462 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100462 OF 2021 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY THE ASSISTANT POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARWAR RURAL POLICE STATION,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAVAN NITHIN PATIL
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE
R/O. OKKALKERI, BINGA,
KARWAR-581301.
Digitally signed
by SUJATA 2. SMT. SHIVAMMA SEETHARAM GOUDA
SUBHASH AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR,
PAMMAR R/O. GOUDARKERI ALIGADDA,
Date: NOW AT OKKALKERI, BINGA,
2024.02.14 KARWAR-581301.
13:17:51 ...RESPONDENTS
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.378(1) AND 3 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.04.2021
PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARWAR
IN CC.NO.69/2020 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARWAR IN CC.NO.69/2020
AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.323 AND 324 R/W 34 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2337
CRL.A No. 100462 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of
Cr.P.C. is filed by the State assailing the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Court of the Addl.Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Karwar in C.C.No.69/2020 dated
07.04.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections
323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal as revealed
from the records narrated briefly are, that on 17.10.2019
at about 11.15 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Karwar Rural
police station, near the house of CW1, accused Nos.1 and
2 in furtherance of common intention quarreled with
CW4(PW3) in relation to a pathway and accused No.1
assaulted CW4 with an iron rod and caused simple
injuries. It is the further the case of the prosecution that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2337
accused had pulled the saree of CW4 and assaulted CW4
with hands and voluntarily caused simple injuries to CW4
and thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed the
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
4. After filing of the charge sheet before the trial
Court, cognizance of the alleged offences was taken.
Accused had appeared before the trial Court and pleaded
not guilty. In support of its case, prosecution had
examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8, had got marked 10
documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and also produced one
material object as MO1. After recording statement of
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., case was listed for
recording defence evidence. However, on behalf of
accused, no defence evidence was led. The trial Court
thereafter heard the arguments addressed on both sides
and vide the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the
accused of the charge sheeted offences. Being aggrieved
by the same, the State is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2337
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that trial Court has not properly appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence available on record and
has erred in acquitting the accused.
6. In order to prove its charge against accused
beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution had examined 8
witnesses before the trial Court. PW1 Smt.Rajeshwari is
the first informant in the present case and PW2 and PW4
are the pancha witnesses to the spot mahazar-Ex.P2. PW3
Smt.Vijaya Ramkrishna Babrekar is the injured witness,
PW5 Smt.Sandhya Prakash Deshbhandari is the
eyewitness and PW6 Sandeep Ramkrishna Babrekar is the
circumstantial witness. PW7 is the Doctor, who had treated
the injured and PW5 is the investigating officer in the
present case. Ex.P1 is the FIR, ExP2 is the spot mahazar,
Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the photographs and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6
are the sketch prepared by the survey officer PW8. Ex.P9
is the wound certificate and Ex.P10 is the FIR.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2337
7. As per the prosecution, the incident had taken
place on 17.10.2019, but information was belatedly lodged
by PW1 on 19.10.2019. The delay of 2 days in lodging the
first information has not been properly explained and the
same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW1 is the
daughter of PW3 and she has stated that police had visited
the hospital on the date of incident and she also had
stated that on the very same date, she had filed the first
information before the Women Police Station at Karwar.
PW8 the investigating officer has also stated during the
course of cross-examination that he had received MLC
from Karwar district hospital on 17.10.2019 itself, but
police have not registered FIR against accused inspite of
such a MLC. PW2 who is the panch witness to the spot
mahazar-Ex.P2 and PW4 who is the panch witness to
sketch of the spot mahazar-Ex.P8, have stated during the
course of their cross-examination that they do not know
the contents of the documents. PW7 who is the son of
PW3, is not the eyewitness to the incident in question and
he has stated before the Court that his mother was
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2337
admitted in the hospital for 4 to 5 days, but the records do
not disclose the same. PW5 the alleged eyewitness has not
supported the case of the prosecution.
8. The trial Court having found that evidence of
PW1 to Pw8 are contradictory to each other and medical
evidence does not support the case of the prosecution, has
disbelieved the prosecution story. In addition to the same,
delay of 2 days in filing the complaint is also not properly
explained. It is under these circumstances, the trial Court
had acquitted the accused of the charge sheeted offences.
The said view of the trial Court cannot be said to be totally
illegal and perverse in nature. Under these circumstances,
I am of the view that no interference is called for against
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the trial Court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
