Karnataka High Court
Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
CRL.A No. 248 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 248 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SURESH
S/O MAHADEVU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT No.2304, 2ND CROSS
6TH MAIN VINAYAKANAGARA
MYSORE.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by HEMAVATHY
GANGABYRAPPA (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI KARIAPPA N A, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE
MYSORE
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2012
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN
S.C.No.146/10 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT ACCUSED FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
CRL.A No. 248 of 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence dated 23.02.2012
passed in S.C. No. 146/2010 by the II Additional Sessions
Judge, Mysuru, convicting the appellant - accused for
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC sentencing to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and
to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
2. Factual matrix of the case is, that on
25.04.2009 at about 11.00 am when P.W.11 - victim lady
was going on 6th Main Road, Vinayakanagara, the
appellant - accused came in a Maruti Omni Car bearing No.
KA-09-N-9174 from her hind side and came towards her
right side and stood there and her attention was drawn
towards the said car and she found that the door of the
car was opened. The appellant - accused was sitting inside
the said car and he virtually dragged P.W.11 - victim lady
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
into the said car, kidnapped her and took her to a room
situated in second floor of his residential house. In that
room the appellant - accused put a plaster to her mouth,
tied her hands on the hind side and started saying that
she was the main person spoiling his reputation and also
the reputation of his parents by using poisoning words to
the people of Kumbara Koppalu who were intending to
give a girl to marry him and that she was responsible for
breaking of the said marriage of appellant - accused with
the girl in Kumbara Koppalu. The appellant - accused
having developed anger and enmity took out a knife and
caused 7 injuries over the stomach around the umbilicus
causing bleeding injuries. The appellant - accused had sent
her out of the room and P.W.11 - victim lady came to the
main road, with the help of a boy boarded the
autorickshaw and contacted P.W.12 - Deepu who took her
to the nearest hospital and she was admitted as inpatient
in K.R. Hospital, Mysuru. She gave a statement and on
that basis a case came to be registered against the
appellant - accused in crime No. 74/2009 for offence
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
punishable under Sections 363 and 307 of IPC. The Police,
after investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellant
- accused for offence under Sections 363 and 307 of IPC.
The Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to
the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court framed
charge against the appellant - accused for offence under
Section 307 IPC.
3. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. Ex.D.1
to Ex.D.8 have been marked during the cross-examination
of the prosecution witnesses. M.O.1 to M.O.9 are marked.
The statement of the appellant - accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. After hearing
arguments on both the sides the trial Court formulated
points for consideration and convicted the appellant -
accused for offence under Section 307 of IPC. Said
judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been
challenged by the appellant - accused in this appeal.
4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant -
accused and learned HCGP for the respondent - State.
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant -
accused has argued that the sole witness for the
prosecution case is P.W.11 who is the injured and her
evidence is not of sterling quality. There are
contradictions, omissions and improvements in her
evidence. Injuries found on P.W.11, as per Ex.P.12 -
wound certificate, are not stab injuries. Considering the
injuries noted in Ex.P.12 - wound certificate it is clear that
they are self-inflicted by P.W.11 - victim lady so as to
threaten the appellant - accused. P.W11 - victim lady has
denied history given by her to the Doctor which is noted in
Ex.P.12. P.W.11 - victim lady has not stated as to why she
had gone to the house of appellant - accused. The alleged
incident has taken place in the second floor of the building
and it is not possible for a person to lift an un-conscious
person to the second floor. P.W.6 - husband of the victim
lady and P.W.4 - younger brother of the victim lady have
not supported the case of the prosecution. The surgeon
who treated P.W.11 - victim lady has not been examined
to ascertain whether the injuries found on P.W.11 are self-
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
inflicted or not. There is no corroborative evidence. Ex.D.3
to Ex.D.5 indicate that there was affair between appellant
- accused and the victim lady. As the marriage of
appellant - accused was going to be fixed with another
girl, the victim lady in order to see that the appellant -
accused should not marry another girl inflicted the injuries
by herself so as to threaten the appellant - accused. The
injuries noted in Ex.P.12 - wound certificate itself indicate
that they are hesitative injuries. The clothes worn by the
victim lady at the time of incident do not have any holes.
P.W.11 - victim lady has pleaded her ignorance to the
letters - Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5 which were shown to her even
after admitting her handwriting. The contents of Ex.D.3 to
Ex.D.5 indicate that there was relationship between the
appellant - accused and the victim lady. The appellant -
accused has given explanation in his statement recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The learned Senior counsel in
support of his contentions has placed reliance on the
following decisions.
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
i. Khema Vs. Stte of U.P., 2023 (10) SCC 451
ii. Periyasamy Vs. State of T.N., 2024 LiveLaw (SC)244
iii. State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1998 SC
iv. Santosh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2020 (3) SCC 443
v. State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh, 1975 (4) SCC 472
6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent -
State argued that the trial Court on proper appreciation of
the evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellant
- accused. He has supported the reasons assigned by the
trial Court. He further argued that the sole evidence of
P.W11 - victim lady is sufficient to convict the appellant -
accused. On these grounds he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. On the grounds made out and considering the
arguments advanced the following point arises for my
consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
"Whether the trial Court erred in convicting
the appellant - accused for offence under Section
307 of IPC?"
8. My answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
P.W.11 - victim lady is the sole witness to the alleged
incident. Ex.P.13 is the statement of P.W.11 recorded by
P.W.10 - Head Constable in the hospital. As per the
contents of Ex.P.13 the appellant - accused kidnapped her
in a car by making her unconscious by putting a kerchief
containing some smell on her face and took her to his
house situated in the second floor of a building. Said
incident of kidnap has taken place at 11.00 am on a road
of Vinayaknagar. There are no witnesses to the alleged
kidnapping. P.W.11 - victim lady has given history before
the Doctor who examined her in the casualty which is
noted in Ex.P.12 - wound certificate. In the said history
P.W.11 - victim lady has stated that the appellant -
accused assaulted her with a knife when she went to his
room. On being quested as to why she went to the room
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
of the appellant - accused she has told that she will reveal
the same afterwards. Said aspect itself indicates that
P.W.11 - victim lady is hiding something even though she
has stated in her complaint - Ex.P.13 that the appellant -
accused kidnapped her in a car.
9. P.W.4 is the younger brother of P.W.11 - victim
lady and P.W.6 is her husband. Both of them have not
supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.11 - victim
lady has not stated before them that the appellant -
accused has assaulted her with a knife in his house. In
Ex.P.13 - statement of the victim lady it is stated that the
appellant - accused threatened her to remove clothes and
after she removing the clothes he tied her hands on her
back and assaulted with knife on her stomach 2 - 3 times.
P.W.11 - victim lady in her cross-examination has denied
of having stated so which portion of statement is at
Ex.D.1. In Ex.P.13 - complaint she has stated that
appellant - accused assaulted her 2- 3 times while denying
the same she has stated that he has assaulted her 8 times
and said portion of the statement is at Ex.D.2. Evidence of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
P.W.10 - Head Constable would indicate that he has
recorded the statement of P.W.11 - victim lady in the
hospital in the presence of the Doctor as per Ex.P.13. Said
Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 indicate that P.W.11 - victim lady is
deviating from her statement contained in Ex.P.13.
10. Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5 are the letters marked in
cross-examination of P.W.11 - victim lady. The contents of
Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5 are in the handwriting of P.W.11 - victim
lady and the same is admitted by her. P.W.11 - victim lady
on reading the contents of Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 has pleaded
her ignorance to the contents when she was asked as to
whether the contents are true. She has not denied the
contents of Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4. The contents of Ex.D.3 and
Ex.D.4, on plain reading, indicate that there is some
relationship between the victim lady and the appellant -
accused. P.W.11 - victim lady has admitted that she has
been called by the brother of appellant - accused and
questioned her regarding her involvement in cancellation
of marriage of appellant - accused.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
11. P.W.11 - victim lady has not stated why she
went to the house of appellant - accused on the date of
incident. P.W.11 - victim lady has deposed that appellant -
accused stabbed her with a knife - M.O.6. A perusal of the
injuries noted in Ex.P.12 - wound certificate would
indicate that there are no stab wounds found on the
stomach of P.W.11 - victim lady. Injuries noted in Ex.P.12
are cut lacerated incised wound. It is the defence of
appellant - accused that the said injuries found on P.W.11
- victim lady are self-inflicted. P.W.9 - is the Doctor who
examined P.W.11 - victim lady on the date of incident.
P.W.9 - Doctor has answered to the Court questions that
he has not opened the injury and it has been opened by
the Doctor who conducted surgery on the victim lady and
without considering the depth of the injury he cannot say
that the injuries are self-inflicted or not. Considering the
evidence of P.W.9 - the Doctor and nature of injuries
noted in Ex.P.12 - wound certificate it appears that the
defence of appellant - accused that injuries found on the
body of P.W.11 - victim lady are self-inflicted is probable.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
Even the fact that clothes of P.W.11 - victim lady does not
have any holes also supports the fact that the injuries
found on P.W.11 - victim lady are self-inflicted. Learned
Senior counsel appearing for the appellant - accused has
argued that when a person intends to inflict injuries on
herself she will remove the clothes and inflict the injuries.
12. There are serious discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.11 - victim lady.
Therefore it is not safe to base conviction on the sole
testimony of P.W.11 - victim lady even though she is an
injured witness. The testimony of P.W.11 - victim lady
requires to be discarded as she is hiding something and
not telling the truth before the Court. Without considering
all these aspects learned Sessions Judge committed an
error in holding that the appellant - accused has
committed offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
Considering the above aspects benefit of doubt requires to
be extended to the appellant - accused. In view of the
above, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
appellant - accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41989
13. In the result, the following;
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 23.02.2012 passed in S.C. No.
146/2010 by the II Additional Sessions Judge,
Mysuru is set aside.
iii. Consequently, the appellant - accused is acquitted
for offence under Section 307 of IPC.
iv. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant - accused is
ordered to be refunded.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
