State Of Karnataka vs Basappa @ Basavaraj Laxman
2024 Latest Caselaw 12017 Kant

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Basappa @ Basavaraj Laxman on 30 May, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                           -1-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB
                                                 CRL.A No. 100497 of 2019




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                   DHARWAD BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

                                        PRESENT
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                                           AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE
                                         GOWDA
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100497 OF 2019 (A)

               BETWEEN:

               STATE OF KARNATAKA
               REPRESENTED BY THE
               POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
               GHATHAPRABHA POLICE STATION, DIST. GADAG,
               THROUGH THE ADDL.
               STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
               HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location:      AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA      1.   BASAPPA ALIAS BASAVARAJ LAXMAN
                    AGE: MAJOR,
                    R/O: DURADUNDI HAALI, GANESHVADI,
                    TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.

               2.   SIDDAPPA LAXMAN BURJI
                    AGE: MAJOR,
                    R/O: DURADUNDI HAALI, GANESHVADI,
                    TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

               3.   SMT.SATTEVVA LAXMAN BURJI
                    AGE: MAJOR,
                    R/O: DURADUNDI HAALI, GANESHVADI,
                              -2-
                                 NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB
                                    CRL.A No. 100497 of 2019




    TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS POOJA V. GARAGAD FOR
SRI MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R2 AND R3;
R1 ABATED)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 06/02/2019, PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN
S.C. NO.126/2016 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.307 AND 504 R/W 34 OF
IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

   THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the State against the

judgment and order dated 06.02.2019 passed by 12th

Addl. District and Sessions Court, Belagavi, sitting at

Gokak, in S.C.No.126/2016.

2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has

acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 of the

offences punishable under Section 307 and 504 read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC).

3. Accused No.1 is reported to be dead. A copy of

the death certificate of accused No.1 is furnished, wherein,

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

it is seen that he died on 18.09.2019. Hence, the appeal

against accused No.1 is dismissed as abated.

4. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the

State and Ms. Pooja Garaged, learned counsel appearing

for Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bhangi learned Amicus Curiae for

respondents/accused Nos.2 and 3.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that on

06.09.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., when the complainant/

Bheemappa Rangappa Mardi (PW-2) was near Tukkanatti

bus stand along with his cruiser vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-27/6167, accused No.1 requested him

to drop him to his house situated near Dandapur cross.

Complainant fixed the hire charges at Rs.700/- and took

accused No.1 to his house. After dropping him at his

house, when the complainant demanded the hire charges,

accused No.1 brought a sickle from the house and

assaulted him over his thigh and accused Nos.2 and 3 also

assaulted him with hands.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

6. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to

3 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504

read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution got

examined 10 documents and M.Os.1-3, to establish the

guilt of the accused.

7. Learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the

oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the

accused of the charged offences. Hence, this appeal by

the State.

8. The learned Addl. SPP would contend that PW-2

has sustained injury which is established by examining

PW-1 as well as by the wound certificate and also

corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 and

therefore, the prosecution has established the charges

leveled against accused persons.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that accused

No.1 is no more and therefore, the appeal is restricted to

consider the offence committed by accused Nos.2 and 3.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

10. The incident according to the prosecution took

place on 06.09.2015 at about 9.30 p.m. In the complaint

of PW-2 recorded as per Ex.P-4, he has stated that

immediately after the incident, he was shifted to KHI

Hospital for treatment. PW-1 is the Medical Officer who

treated PW-2. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 shows

that he examined the injured at about 10.00 p.m. on

06.09.2015 and noticed one injury measuring 15x1 cm

over the left thigh. The said injury is stated to be simple

in nature. He has stated that the said injury could be

caused by sickle (M.O.1) which was sent to him for

examination. The wound certificate issued by PW-1 is

marked as Ex.P-1. Even though the injured got admitted

himself in the hospital on 06.05.2019 at about 10.00 p.m.

itself, it is pertinent to see that PW-1 has not spoken

about any MLC intimation sent to the concerned police

station regarding the admission of PW-2. In the injury

certificate/Ex.P-1, the alleged incident is one of assault.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

11. As per PW-10, PSI, who conducted

investigation and filed charge sheet, he received the MLC

intimation on 08.09.2015, which is after two days from the

date of incident. He has deposed that he went to the

hospital at about 9.15 p.m. on 08.09.2015 and enquired

the injured regarding the incident.

12. PW-7 is a pancha witness to the spot mahazar-

Ex.P-5. PW-8 and PW-9 are the police officials, who

assisted the investigation conducted by PW-10.

13. Ex.P-4 is the complaint. The scribe of Ex.P-4 is

PW-6. In the complaint, it is alleged that as per the

complaint, in view of the dispute with regard to payment

of hire charges, accused No.1 assaulted PW-2 with a sickle

on his left thigh and accused Nos.2 and 3 also assaulted

him with hands.

14. There is a delay of 48 hours in recording the

statement of the complainant. Admittedly, the motive is

attributed against accused No.1, wherein it is alleged that

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

the said accused requested PW-2 to drop him at his house

in his cruiser vehicle, fixing Rs.700/- as hire charges and

later refused to pay the hire charges. It is not forthcoming

as to the relationship of accused No.2 and 3 with accused

No.1 and also the motive for them to assault PW-2.

Neither the evidence of PW-1 nor the wound certificate at

Ex.P-4 indicate any injuries on the back of PW-2.

15. In the complaint-Ex.P-4, which was belatedly

lodged, it is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 also

assaulted PW-2 with hands on his back. However, in the

deposition, PW-2 has not stated that accused Nos.2 and 3

have assaulted him on his back.

16. In view of the delay in recording the statement

of PW-2, it is necessary to find corroboration to the

evidence of PW-1 with regard to role played by the

accused Nos.2 and 3. The prosecution has examined PW-

3 and PW-4 as eyewitnesses to lend corroboration to the

evidence of PW-1. In Ex.P-4, it is stated that the said

witnesses have come to rescue PW-2 and they pacified the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

quarrel and shifted him to the hospital. If the cross-

examination of PW-3 is perused, he has admitted that

when accused No.1 was assaulting PW-2, he was not

present and he went to the spot after the commission of

offence and by the time he reached the spot, accused

Nos.1 and 2 had already assaulted PW-2 with a sickle.

Similarly, PW-4 has deposed in his chief itself that he was

informed by the complainant about the incident.

17. For the foregoing reasons, we find insufficient

evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3 to hold that they

too shared a common intention with accused No.1 and

assaulted PW-2 with hands. Further there is no sufficient

and acceptable material on record to convict accused

Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 504

read with Section 34 of IPC.

18. The trial Court has taken into consideration the

delay in lodging the complaint as well as expressed its

doubt regarding the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the

scene of occurrence. This being an appeal against the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7188-DB

judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the view

which is taken in favour of the accused has to be

accepted, in the absence of any cogent and convincing

evidence in favour of the prosecution. Accordingly, we

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal against accused No.1 is dismissed as abated.

(ii) Appeal against accused Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed.

(iii) The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) which shall be payable by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE NAA