Karnataka High Court
State By Deputy vs Adunhi @ P.A Abdulla on 13 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
CRL.A No. 1258 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE BY DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION
PUTTUR
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
AND:
1. ADUNHI @ P.A ABDULLA
Digitally
signed by S/O KHADER
SUDHA S
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
Location:
HIGH COURT R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
OF
KARNATAKA KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
2. MAZEED A K
S/O ABDULLA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
CRL.A No. 1258 of 2016
3. A K KHADER
S/O ABDULLA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
4. T K ASIF
S/O T K MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
5. ABDUNHI @ S ABDULLA
S/O SAIDU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE,\
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
6. SULAIMAN
S/O SAIDU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
7. SIDDIQ
S/O MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
8. HAMEED
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
CRL.A No. 1258 of 2016
S/O MOOSE
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
9. ABBAS
S/O MOOSE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT SUNNAMULE HOUSE
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK - 574 239.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH KUMAR K RAO FOR
SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
(SPECIAL) JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.15/2013,
THEREBY ACQUITTING RESPONDENT-ACCUSED OF THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 448,
504, 506, 323, 324 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(x)(xi)
OF SC/ST (PA) ACT 1989 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
CRL.A No. 1258 of 2016
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - State being
aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated
02.02.2016 in Special Case No.15/2013 on the file of II
Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K.,
Mangaluru, wherein the Trial Court recorded the acquittal of the
respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506, 323, 324 r/w 149 of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC & ST (POA) Act').
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, PW.1
Smt.Lakshmi has lodged a complaint stating that, on
17.12.2012, at about 10.30 p.m., when she was at her home,
the accused came in search of PW.4 Vasantha and started
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
shouting at her by asking for PW.4. The accused persons
thinking that PW.4 Vasantha might be inside the house,
committed criminal trespass into the house and started
searching for him. The accused persons have pushed PW.1 and
threatened her that if PW.4 is not available, they would assault
PW.1. Being aggrieved by the said threatening, PW.1 went to
her elder sister's house and informed about the incident to her
sister and PW.6 - Babu and stayed there overnight.
4. On the next day morning, PW.1 came along with
PW.6 and found that, her son had not come to her house.
However, she has learnt that, when her son who is examined
as PW.4 and PW.2 - friend of PW.4, being the friend of her son,
were sitting in the bus stand, on the previous night, at about
7.00 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 9 forming an unlawful
assembly, went there and started abusing PWs.2 and 4 stating
that why they were sitting in the bus stand and further they
have shouting at them that both were sitting there to tear the
banner which was tied by the accused.
5. It is further learnt that both PWs.2 and 4 have been
assaulted by the accused. PW.4 after being assaulted, went to
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
the hospital for treatment and was admitted there. It is further
stated that, PW.1 learnt that PW.6 had joined PW.4 to the
hospital for treatment. In that regard, PW.1 has lodged a
complaint against the accused. The jurisdictional police have
registered a case in Crime No.226/2012 for the offence under
Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P10 and identified M.Os.1 and 2. The Trial
Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, recorded the acquittal. Being aggrieved by the same,
the State has preferred this appeal.
7. Heard Sri Rahul Rai K., learned High Court
Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri Dinesh Kumar K.
Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri R B Deshpande, learned
counsel for the respondents.
8. It is the submission of learned High Court
Government Pleader (for short 'HCGP') that the findings of the
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
Trial Court in recording the acquittal is perverse and illegal and
therefore, the judgment of acquittal has to be set aside.
9. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.4
who is an injured eyewitness, has stated in his evidence that
the accused have assaulted and caused injuries. The said
injuries which PW.4 has sustained have been proved by the
independent witness namely the Doctor who is examined as
PW.3, who issued wound certificate as per Ex.P6.
10. It is further submitted that, in addition to evidence
of PWs.3 and 4, the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 5 and 6 are
consistent regarding the incident which occurred on 17.12.2012
at about 7.00 p.m., and on the same day at about 10.30 p.m.
In spite of evidence led by the prosecution and proved the
case, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the same and recorded
the acquittal which is inappropriate and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
11. It is further submitted that, PW.4 has stated in his
evidence that, he has been insulted by the accused by naming
his caste and further the accused have threatened him with
dire consequences. Even though the prosecution has proved
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
the case in respect of the provisions of SC / ST (POA) Act, the
Trial Court has failed to consider the same and recorded the
acquittal which is inappropriate and the same is liable to be set
aside. Making such submission, learned HCGP prays to allow
the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently justified the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Trial Court and submitted that the case of tearing the banner
was filed against PWs.2, 4 and 5 which was pending for
consideration. PW.4 conspired along with PWs.2 and 5 and
foisted a false case against the accused in order to take
revenge, which is unsustainable.
13. It is further submitted that the Trial Court while
appreciating the evidence on record, opined that the evidence
of witnesses would indicate that, there is a dispute relating to
the mosque between PW.5 i.e., B.K. Mohammed and accused.
The accused No.1 in the present case had filed a case against
PWs.5, 4 and 2 regarding tearing of banner. In order to
overcome the dispute, a false case has been registered against
the accused. Considering the same, the Trial Court has
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
disbelieved the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5 and recorded the
acquittal which is appropriate and the appellant - State has not
made out any grounds to interfere with the findings. Making
such submission, learned counsel for the respondents justified
the judgment of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal.
14. After having heard learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial
Court, it appears that, PWs.2 and 4 were sitting near
Sunnamule Bus Stand on 17.12.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., the
accused Nos.1 to 9 forming an unlawful assembly, came there
and started abusing PWs.2 and 4 stating that, why they had
torn the banner which the accused had tied. It is stated that
the accused have assaulted PW.2 and PW.4. PW.4 sustained
injuries in the said incident. After seeing the incident, PW.2 ran
away from the spot. Again at about 10.30 p.m. on the same
day, the accused persons went to the house of PW.1 who is the
mother of PW.4 in searching of PW.4.
15. The accused persons have directed PW.1 to send
her son out of the house. When PW.1 replied that his son was
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
not there in the house, the accused persons have entered into
the house and searched for PW.4. As they did not get PW.4 in
the house, they have threatened PW.1 that she should send
PW.4 to them soon after he came, lest she would be beaten by
them. Being afraid of the said threatening, PW.1 went to her
sister's house and stayed there overnight and on the following
day she came back to her house with PW.6 who is none other
the son of her sister. After she came to her house, she learnt
that her son had not come to her house. However, she was
told that her son has been admitted to hospital. PW.1 along
with PW.6 went to the hospital and obtained information
regarding the incident and lodges a complaint.
16. No doubt, the evidence of PW.4 who is injured
witness corroborated by the evidence of PW.3 who treated
PW.4 in the hospital. PW.5 being a friend of PW.4 said to have
admitted to the hospital. The evidence of PW.5 and wound
certificate which is marked as Ex.P6 indicates that PW.5 has
stated the history of assault to the Doctor who treated PW.4.
However, PW.3 has not informed the jurisdictional police
regarding the incident, even though it is a medico-legal case,
certainly, it creates doubt. If the assault to PW.4 had really
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
been taken place as narrated by PW.4, the complaint would
have been lodged either by PW.4 or PW.3. Lodging a complaint
on the following day of the alleged incident seriously creates
doubt and the said delay was not explained. Therefore, the
registration of FIR is held to be unreliable.
17. In the evidence of PW.5, it is elicited that there is a
dispute between himself and accused relating to the mosque.
It is also elicited that the accused No.1 in the present case had
filed a complaint against PWs.2, 4 and 5 and the defence
established that there is enmity between PWs.2, 4, 5 and the
accused. When the defence established the enmity, the
witnesses are considered as interested witnesses, in such
circumstances, the Court has to look for corroboration. In the
present case, except related witnesses, none of the
independent witnesses have supported the case either for
abusing PW.4 by naming the caste in the public place or the
assault. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
all reasonable doubt, however, the Court below failed to take
note of the same and passed the impugned judgment which is
required to be set aside.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6260
18. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss
