Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Hakeem Sab @ M.A. Vali Sab on 9 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
CRL.A No. 100153 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100153 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HOSAPETE SUB-DIVISION
THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
AND:
1. HAKEEM SAB @ M.A. VALI SAB,
S/O. KARIM SAB,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed
by
R/O: BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE, HOSAPETE.
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
Date: 2. R.A. SHIVA KUMAR, S/O. R.ARMUGAM,
2024.02.13
10:51:20 +0530 AGE: 44 YEARS,
R/O: M.J. NAGAR, HOSAPETE.
3. CHANDRASHEKARA GOUDA
S/O. S.SOMANA GOUDA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O: KAMPLI.
4. H.VENKATESH S/O. MARENNA,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
R/O: 9TH WARD, 4TH CROSS,
SIDDALINGAPPA CHOWKI, HOSAPETE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
CRL.A No. 100153 of 2016
5. R.A. MOHAN S/O. R.ARMUGAM,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
R/O: KANAGAGIRI ROAD,
GANGAVATHI,
KOPPAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
R5 ABATED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
05.12.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI IN SPECIAL CASE
NO. 119 OF 2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.12.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BALLARI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.119 OF 2013 BY ALLOWING
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE CHARGED
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504,
506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(X) OF
SC/ST ACT 1989 AGAINST HIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal
Judgment passed in Special Case No.119/2023 dated
05.12.2015 by the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ballari, wherein the learned Session Judge
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
acquitted the accused/respondent Nos.1 to 5 for the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,
324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code
and Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe,
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act')
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in
brief are-
On 25.05.2012 at about 11.00 p.m., when P.W.1-
Complainant along with P.W.4 were travelling on a
motorcycle to their house, they found KCN cable wire
being cut and it has fallen on the ground in front of the
High School, Hospet. On witnessing the same, they found
that, accused No.1 to 5 were cutting those cable wires and
when quizzed, accused No.5 & 3 slapped P.W.1 on his
cheek and abused him in filthy language, by mentioning
his caste and threatened him with dire consequence. Post
incident the P.W.1, lodged the complaint on the next day
i.e., on 26.05.2012 at about 2.00 p.m. before the
Chittawadagi Police Station as per Ex.P.1 and the same
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
has been registered for the aforementioned offences
against the accused No.1 to 6 in Crime No.45/2012 dated
26.05.2012 as per Ex.P.5 by P.W.12.
3. Subsequently, P.W.12 conducted the Spot
Mahazar as per Ex.P.2 on 26.05.2012. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer-P.W.11, the then Deputy
Commissioner of Police, conducted the further
investigation after a lapse of one and half year i.e., in the
month of November, 2013 and drawn the recovery
mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and post recording the statements
of the witnesses, laid the charge-sheet before the Special
Court against accused Nos.1 to 5 i.e. respondent Nos.1 to
5o for the aforementioned offences.
4. The learned Special Judge post taking the
cognizance, framed the charge for the aforementioned
offences and read over the same to the accused. The
accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution in total examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
P.W.12 before the trial Court, so also got marked 11
documents i.e. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and got identified one
material object i.e. M.O.1.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence,
the learned Special Judge read over the incriminating
evidence of material witnesses to the accused, however
the accused denied the same. The accused neither chose
to examine any witness on their behalf nor got marked
any documents. Be that as it may, the defence of the
accused is one of total denial and that of false implication.
7. After assessment of the oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused
for the charges levelled against them vide Judgement
dated 05.12.2015 as stated supra. The correctness of the
said Judgment is challenged under this appeal by the
State.
8. Heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-
State, so also learned counsel Sri. K.L.Patil for the
respondents/accused.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
9. The learned Addl. SPP vehemently contends
that the Judgment under this appeal totally suffers from
perversity and illegality and the learned Sessions Judge
acquitted the accused in spite of sufficient evidence placed
by the prosecution against the accused for the offences
they have charged. The learned Special Judge has
completely erred while appreciating the evidence of PW.1-
injured and 4, eye-witness to the incident. He would
further contend that, the evidence of P.W.1, clearly
corroborates with contents of Ex.P.1-complaint lodged by
him, at the earliest point of time. Further his evidence also
corroborates with the medical evidence i.e., the evidence
of P.W.10-Doctor who examined him and issued the
wound certificate as per Ex.P.9. In such scaenarium, there
is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1.
Nevertheless, the P.W.4, eye-witness to the incident also
supported the case of the prosecution and his version
corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. Hence, according
to the learned Addl. SPP the prosecution has proved the
guilt of the accused. In spite of which the learned Sessions
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
Judge acquitted the accused and it is on this ground he
would submit that the impugned Judgment calls for
interference of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the appeal and to convict the accused for the charges
levelled against them.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
accused/respondents submits that, the learned Sessions
Judge after meticulously examining the material available
on record, has rightly acquitted the accused for the
charges levelled against them. He would further contend
that, the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 on 26.05.2012 at
about 2.00 p.m. for the alleged incident caused on
25.05.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. Hence, there is an
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Further, after
registering of FIR, P.W.12 has drawn the spot mahazar on
26.05.2012 and thereafter, further investigation was
conducted after lapse of nearly one and half years, more
specifically, in the month of November 2013. This
inordinate delay in conducting investigation and filing
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
charge-sheet by the Investigation Officer, creates a clear
doubt in the case of prosecution and that accused have
been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. According to
the learned counsel, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1
and Ex.P.1, there are much contradictions forthcoming.
P.W.4 though claims to be an eye-witness to the incident,
he did not depose against the accused Nos.1 to 4 before
the Court. According to him, accused No.5/respondent
No.5 alone abused PW.1 by mentioning his caste and also
assaulted him. This aspect has also been reiterate by the
PW.1-complinant. Hence, according to the learned counsel,
prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled
against the accused Nos.1 to 4/respondent Nos.1 to 4, as
such, the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the
accused in a well reasoned Judgment, the same does not
call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the appeal. He would further submit that,
during the pendency of this appeal Accused
No.5/respondent No.5 has expired and as such the case
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
against him stands abated by the order of this Court dated
23.02.2018.
11. Having heard the learned Addl. SPP so also the
learned counsel for the respondents, the only point that
would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the Judgment under this
appeal suffers from perversity or
illegality?"
12. On careful perusal and re-appreciation of the
evidence placed by the prosecution before the learned
Special Judge -
P.W.1- Ravikumar, Complainant, stated that on
25.05.2012 at about 11.00p.m Cricket match was going
on and at that time his owner had informed him not to go
anywhere, since, there was a possibility of furore and it
was stated that at about 11.00 p.m., when he was
returning to his house, he witnessed that a person was
cutting a cable from the electric pole and the same was
laying down, hence, he requested him, at that time, the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
accused Nos.1 to 5 abused him by taking his caste and
accused No.5 assaulted him with iron rod. However, he did
not lodge any complaint on that that and he lodged the
complaint on the next day i.e., on 26.05.2012 at about
12.00 p.m.
P.W.2- Girish Kumar, panch witness for Ex.P.2-Spot
Mahazar, admitted in his evidence that the police have not
seized any network cable wire from the spot in his
presence.
P.W.3- Nagaraju, witness for the Recovery Mahazar-
Ex.P.3, drawn in the Office of P.W.11, wherein, an iron rod
as per M.O.1 was seized in the month of November, 2013.
P.W.4- S.Kumar, eye-witness to the incident, stated
that he has seen the accused at the time of incident.
According to him, the accused No.5 abused and assaulted
the P.W.1 with an iron rod and abused P.W.1 by
mentioning his caste. Thereafter some four to five persons
came and assaulted the complainant.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
P.W.5- B.Gurunatha, circumstantial witness, post
incident he reached the spot and found that the PW.1 has
sustained bleeding injuries.
P.W.6- Mallappa, eye-witness to the incident, turned
hostile to the prosecution case.
P.W.7- Venkatesh, the then Police Constable of
Chittawadagi Police Station, carried the FIR from the Police
Station to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ballari.
P.W.8- Sannakotrappa, the then Police constable,
accompanied the injured to the Government Hospital for
treatment on 25.05.2012.
P.W.9- K.Veerappa, Asst. Executive Engineer, drawn
spot sketch as per Ex.P.8.
P.W.10- Dr.Mahantesh examined, Medical Officer,
examined injured P.W.1 on 25.05.2012 and issued Wound
Certificate as per Ex.P.9.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
P.W.11-Devendrappa, Investigating Officer,
conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet
against the accused.
P.W.12-K.P.Ravikumar, the then P.S.I. of
Chittawadagi Police Station, registered the FIR-Ex.P5
against the accused, based on the complaint by P.W.1 as
per Ex.P.1 and also drawn the spot mahazar-Ex.P.2 and
handed over the investigation to P.W.11.
13. On careful perusal of the above evidence placed
by the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of
P.W.1 and Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P.1 the complaint
lodged by P.W.1, according to it, the incident caused in the
night of 25.05.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. Further it is
averred in Ex.P1 that the accused No.5 assaulted PW.1
with the iron rod M.O.1. However, PW.1 did not lodge any
complaint immediately after the incident as the same
came to be lodged on the next day i.e., on 26.05.2013 at
about 2.00 p.m. Hence, there exist an inordinate delay in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
lodging the complaint and the delay of which, is not
explained either by the P.W.1 or by the prosecution.
Further, according to P.W.1, he had sustained injuries and
got treated in the Government Hospital on 25.05.2012.
The Wound Certificate-Ex.P.9 by P.W.10 would indicate
that, P.W.1 has been accompanied by the then Head
Constable of Chittawadagi Police Station on 25.05.2012 at
about 5.00 p.m. with the history of assault and the Doctor
for the first time examined him on 25.05.2012 at about
5.00 p.m itself on the other hand, according to Ex.P.1, the
incident had caused on 25.05.2012 at 11.00 p.m. That
being the case the P.W.1 obtained treatment before the
incident itself. Hence, on collective reading, there exists a
clear contradiction in respect of very alleged incident only.
Accordingly, it can be conclusively opined that, the medical
evidence belies the oral testimony of P.W.1.
14. Further on perusal of evidence of P.W.1, he
stated that, accused No.5, slapped him on his cheek and
he himself abused him by mentioning his caste name and
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
assaulted him with an iron rod. P.W.5 deposes that, he
has witnessed, P.W.1 has sustained bleeding injuries.
Admittedly, Ex.P.9 does not disclose any such injuries
sustained by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.4 the other eye-
witness to the incident also depicts that, accused No.5
slapped the P.W.1 on his cheek and he abused him by
mentioning his caste. As submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondent, the case against the accused No.5 is
already abated since he is no more.
15. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4,
there are much contradictions in respect of the manner in
which the incident had been alleged to be caused, more
over the delay in lodging the complaint by P.W.1 and the
investigation was conducted after a lapse of one and half
years, by PW.11, creates a doubt in the case of
prosecution and also that P.W.11, allegedly recovered
M.O.1 iron rod after a lapse of one and half year which
also goes against the case of the prosecution.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
16. As stated supra, there exists a clear
contradictions in respect of date and time of the alleged
incident. As admitted by P.W.1, there was a dispute in
respect of cable network between the employer of P.W.1
and P.W.4 so also the accused. As such, the defence of the
accused that as matter of vengeance, P.W.1 lodged a false
complaint on the behest of his employer, seems to be
probable one. It is the specific case of P.W.1 that, the
incident was caused while P.W.1 objected for cutting the
cable from the electric pole by the accused on the night of
25.05.2012. But, no such cables have been seized by the
Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, the entire allegation
of the assault and also the abuse of P.W.1 by mentioning
his caste, is said to have been committed by accused No.5
as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and the said
accused No.5 is presently no more and case against him is
already abated. In such unwarranted scenario, this being
an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal Order,
there is no such compelling reasons that are forthcoming
seeking interference in the same. Accordingly, keeping in
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3117
mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahendra
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 11
SCC 334, I am of the considered view that, the impugned
Judgment does not call for any interference and
accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the
negative and proceed to dismiss the appeal being devoid
of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
