Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Umesh S/O Krishnamurthy Kammar on 7 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
CRL.A No. 100111 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100111 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA)
AND:
UMESH S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY KAMMAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER,
R/O: HOUSE NO.15, KAMBAR ONI,
MALAPUR, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed (BY SRI VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATE)
by VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
COURT OF (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE
KARNATAKA
TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY
THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.55/2016 DATED 05.08.2016 AND TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD
IN CRL. A. NO.55 OF 2016 AND TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.428 OF
2014 DATED 22.03.2016 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
CRL.A No. 100111 of 2017
JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of
acquittal passed by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Dharwad (for short, 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal
No. 55/2016 dated 05.08.2016 wherein, the Appellate Court
has set aside the order of conviction dated 22.03.2016 passed
in C.C.No.428/2014 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Dharwad (for short, 'trial Court').
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before
the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal
are as under:
PW1-Manohar Balappa Kambar lodged a complaint
alleging that on 05.12.2013 at about 3:00 pm when he was in
backyard of his house, the accused came and restrained him
not to move here and there and abused in filthy language,
assaulted with Bachi on his head and also gave life threat.
Thus, the accused has committed offences punishable under
Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
4. After filing charge sheet, the trial Court has taken
cognizance and a case was registered in C.C.No.428/2014.
Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged
offences, same were read over and explained to the accused.
Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the case of prosecution, 12 witnesses
were examined as PWs.1 to 12; documents as per Exs.P.1 to
P.10 and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and
M.O.2. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded as to the
incriminating evidence. The accused has totally denied the
evidence of prosecution witnesses but has not adduced any
defence evidence on his behalf.
6. Having heard arguments of both sides, the trial
Court has passed the order of conviction and sentenced for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 324,
504 and 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction
and sentence, the accused had preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.55/2016, which came to
be allowed and the accused was acquitted for the commission
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 324 and 506
of IPC as per judgment dated 05.08.2016. Being aggrieved by
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court, the
State is before this Court in this appeal.
7. Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned Additional
Government Advocate would submit that the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Appellate Court is contrary to law, facts
and evidence placed on record, hence, the same is not
sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set
aside. Further, he would submit that PW1 is the injured witness
and PW6 is the wife of PW1, who is also an eyewitness to the
incident. Both have categorically stated about the overt act
committed by the accused. The same is accepted by the trial
Court and convicted the accused for the alleged offences, but
the Appellate Court by giving much importance to minor
contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW6, has acquitted
the accused. He further submits that the evidence of PWs1 and
6 is further corroborated by the evidence of Doctor who has
examined the injured and issued Wound Certificate as per
Ex.P7 and he has also mentioned in the case sheet that the
victim was brought to the hospital with a history of assault and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
injury. The evidence of Doctor was discarded by the Appellate
Court on the ground that under what circumstances PW1
sustained injury remained in question. The Appellate Court has
also discarded the evidence of the injured witness. Further,
learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the trial
Court has convicted the accused for the alleged offences. The
reasons assigned by the trial Court was not properly read and
appreciated by the Appellate Court and thereby, allowed the
appeal by committing grave error in acquitting the accused.
The same is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law and
on these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal.
8. As against this, learned counsel for the accused
would submit that the Appellate Court has properly appreciated
the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts which
needs no interference. On these grounds, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard arguments of both sides and on
perusal of the appeal papers along with original records, the
following points would arise for my consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
1) Whether the prosecution has made out
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment
of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court?
2) What order?
10. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 : In the negative
Point No. 2 : As per final order
11. Reasons to Point No.1: It is the case of the
prosecution that PW1-Manohar Balappa Kambar lodged a
complaint alleging that on 05.12.2013 at about 3:00 pm when
he was in backyard of his house, the accused came and
restrained him not to move here and there and abused in filthy
language, assaulted with Bachi on his head and also gave life
threat and committed offences punishable under Sections 341,
324, 504 and 506 of IPC. Case was registered against the
accused and charges were framed for the alleged commission
of offences, but the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. To prove the case of prosecution, 12 witnesses were
examined as PWs.1 to 12; documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10
and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. It
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
is the allegation of the prosecution that the incident took place
on 05.12.2013 at about 3:00 pm and the complaint-Ex.P1
reveals that the complaint came to be filed on 05.12.2013 at
18:30 hours. The FIR-Ex.P9 reveals that the Police have
submitted FIR on the same day at 10:15 pm. Ex.P7-Wound
Certificate reveals that the injured went to the hospital along
with Police Constable Sri.V.N.Badiger with history of assault on
05.12.2013. PW8-Dr. Prabhu Tippanna has pointed in Ex.P7
that the injury sustained by the accused is on the left side of
his head which is simple in nature. PW1 was admitted to the
hospital on 05.12.2013 and discharged on 06.12.2013. PW8-
Doctor has not deposed anything against the accused and the
name of the accused is also not shown in Ex.P7-Wound
Certificate. The prosecution or the Medical Officer has not
explained anything as to why PW8 has not shown the name of
the person in the Wound Certificate as to who has assaulted the
injured, which will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged
incident.
12. PW2-Sudhir Basavaraj Kammar and PW5-Manohar
Mallikarjun said to be attestors to Ex.P3, have supported the
case of the prosecution. PW3-Arjun Dyamanna Mestri and PW4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
Kupendra Venkatesh Prabhu, said to be attestors to Exs.P4 and
P5, have deposed as to the contents of the Mahazar. PW7-
Srikant Basavaraj Badiger, who is the close relative of the
accused and complainant and said to be the eyewitness to the
incident has not supported the case of the prosecution. This
witness has been cross-examined by learned APP after treating
him as hostile witness. Even in cross-examination, this witness
has categorically denied the statement recorded by the IO said
to have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. marked at
Ex.P6. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to elicit any
favourable answers from this witness. The only remaining
witness PW1 and PW6, who are the complainant and his mother
are concerned, both have deposed that the accused assaulted
PW1 with Bachi. PWs1 and 6 have clearly admitted that there
was a dispute regarding property between them and the
accused. Further, they admitted that about 15 to 20 times they
approached the Police and the Police have advised them to
settle the matter approaching the Civil Court.
13. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that there
is no consistency as to the time of incident in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7672
14. On re-appreciation/re-examination of the entire
evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that there is
no cogent, corroborative, trustworthy and believable
evidence in the prosecution witnesses. The Appellate Court
has properly appreciated the evidence in accordance with
law and facts. Hence, I do not find any legal infirmity or
illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate
Court. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
19. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons and
discussions, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
trial Court along with original records, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
