Karnataka High Court

Sri.Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2024

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786
                                                   CRL.A No. 100297 of 2016




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
                                           BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100297 OF 2016 (C)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI MANJUNATH @ LANDRI MANJU CHANNAPPA,
                   AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: WASHERMAN (DHOBI),
                   R/O: RAMADURGA VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI,
                   DIST: BALLARI.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR APPELLANT)

                   AND:

                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
                   KUDLIGI POLICE STATION,
                   KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI,
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS
                   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed   HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
by BHARATHI H
M                                                             ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
KARNATAKA


                        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
                   OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF CONVICTION
                   DATED 01.10.2016 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
                   06.10.2016 IN S.C. NO.5058 OF 2014 PASSED BY THE 3RD
                   ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI SITTING
                   AT HOSAPETE AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
                   PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B, 448, 307 READ WITH
                   SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786
                                  CRL.A No. 100297 of 2016




    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)

In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant, who is accused

No.1 has challenged his conviction and sentence for the

offences punishable under Sections 120B, 448 and 307

read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The Kudligi Police filed charge sheet against

accused Nos.1 to 3, alleging that accused No.1 was

eking out his livelihood ironing clothes. The family of

complainant usually got their clothes ironed through

him. On 10.01.2014 at 12 noon, in furtherance of their

conspiracy to commit the murder of complainant, who

used to be alone after her husband and daughter left

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

the house, to steal gold ornaments and cash from the

house of complainant. While accused No.2 and 3 stood

guard in front of the house, accused No.1 trespassed

into the house of complainant-Sangeeta, situated at

KHB Colony, Kudligi, under the pretext of enquiring,

whether pant belonging to some other customer has

come with their clothes. After the complainant showed

him the clothes, accused No.1 requested for a glass of

drinking water and after he drank it, while complainant

was taking away the glass, accused No.1 assaulted with

an iron rod on her head from behind and when she

cried with pain, he wielded second blow with the iron

rod and when complainant evaded the blow with her

left hand, she suffered injury on her hand. Accused

No.1 also tried to strangle her neck. When hearing her

cries, neighbours came running, accused No.1 ran away

from the house, leaving the iron rod and the plastic

cover, in which he was carrying it. After realizing that

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

their attempt to rob the complainant is foisted, accused

Nos.2 and 3 who were standing guard also ran away

and thereby the accused persons have committed

offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 and 120B

read with Section 34 of IPC. During the investigation,

the fact of conspiracy between accused Nos.1 to 3

came to light and hence the charge sheet.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, 10 witnesses

are examined as PWs-1 to 10, Exs.P-1 to 12 and MOs'

1 to 4 are marked.

6. During their statement under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., accused have denied the incriminating

evidence led by the prosecution.

7. Accused have not led any defence evidence.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

8. Vide the impugned Judgment and order, the

trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them

as detailed in the Judgment and order. However,

accused Nos.2 and 3 have been given the benefit of

Probation of Offenders Act.

9. Aggrieved by The impugned Judgment and

order, accused No.1 has filed this appeal contending

that it is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material

evidence on record. The trial Court has failed to see

that prosecution has not examined any independent

witnesses. During the cross examination, PW-3 has

specifically admitted that she is giving evidence to help

the complainant. PW-2 Basavaraj and the husband of

complainant Srinivas are working in the same college.

The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the charges

leveled against accused are not proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Accused No.1 is entitled for benefit

of doubt and prays to allow and acquit him.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

10. On the other hand, learned HCGP supports

the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and

perused the record.

12. The undisputed facts are that the husband of

complainant was working as a Lecturer and accused

No.1 was a Washerman engaged in ironing in a shed in

the vicinity of complainant's house. He used to iron the

clothes belonging to complainant and her family

members. As usually happen when clothes are given for

washing or ironing, sometimes clothes would be mixed

with others clothes and the Washerman may come and

enquire to get back them or return the clothes which

have gone to the wrong person. Sometimes this used

to happen with complainant and others.

13. It is the specific case of prosecution that

accused Nos.1 to 3 entered into a conspiracy to murder

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

the complainant as she used to be alone in the house

and commit theft of gold ornaments and cash kept in

her house. The testimony of complainant i.e., PW.1

Sangeeta, her neighbours i.e., PW.4 Tippeswamy, who

is none other than the owner of house where the

complainant and her family members were staying as

tenants and PW.3 Parvathi, who is the wife of PW.4

Tippeswamy proves that on the date of incident, around

12 noon accused No.1 knocked the door of complainant

(PW.1) under the pretext of enquiring whether pant of

some other customer has come with their clothes. In

fact she showed the clothes received from accused

No.1 and convinced him that she has not received any

other clothes.

14. At this stage, accused No.1 requested the

complainant to give him drinking water and after he

drank the water and returned the glass, when she

turned to go towards kitchen to keep the glass,

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

suddenly he assaulted her with iron rod on her head.

She cried in pain and he gave second blow. When

complainant tried to evade the blow with her left hand,

she sustained injury to her forefinger of left hand. At

this stage, accused No.1 tried to strangulate her neck.

By that time, hearing the cries of the complainant, her

neighbours namely the owner of house and his wife

PWs.4 and 3 came running to her house and on seeing

them, all the three accused ran away. PW.4

Thippeswamy has also deposed that when he came to

the house of complainant, he saw accused No.1 running

away. Since accused No.1 was having his shed and

washing the clothes of the residents of that area he

was familiar and also known to PW.4. In fact, it is the

specific case of the prosecution that complainant was

outside her house and she came to know about it

through PWs.3 and 4.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

15. In the complaint, the fact of accused Nos.2

and 3 waiting outside the house of complainant and

they were acting in concert with accused No.1 is not

forthcoming in the complaint, since it was a fact which

came to the knowledge of complainant subsequently.

However, the testimony of PW.1 with regard to the

actual incident in which accused No.1 assaulted her

with the iron rod after entering the house under the

pretext of enquiring about missing pant is proved

beyond reasonable doubt.

16. PW.6 Srinivasa is the husband of

complainant. When the incident took place, he was at

the college. After getting the information through

telephonic communication, he reached the house along

with his friend, PW.2 Basavaraj. Their evidence proves

that after coming to know about the incident, they

reached the house and came to know about the

incident through PWs.1, 3 and 4. PW.1 and 6 have also

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

deposed that immediately the complainant was taken

to private clinic for treatment. It appears that since it

was a medico legal case, he directed them to go to the

Government Hospital, which was situated adjacent to

his clinic. Accordingly, they went to Government

Hospital and PW.1 was treated there.

17. Absolutely, PWs.1 3, 4 and 6 they have no

motive or reason to falsely implicate accused No.1. At

the trial, accused No.1 has taken a defense that pant

belonging to some other customer had come to the

house of complainant, and in fact, the husband of

complainant was wearing it on the previous day and in

the public accused reprimanded him for wearing others'

pant and for this reason, he was annoyed and

therefore, they have falsely implicated accused No.1.

Of course, PWs.1 and 6 have denied the said

suggestion. As deposed by the complainant, though

under the guise of enquiring about missing pant,

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

accused No.1 came to her house, in fact, she showed

him the cloth which she received from the accused and

on verifying them, accused No.1 was convinced that

the missing pant has not given to her and the missing

pant was found with the clothes belonging to the

complainant's family, it would have supported the

defence of the accused that because of the said reason,

he has been falsely implicated which is not the case on

hand. Even otherwise, if really, the missing pint was

available with the clothes of complainant's family and

defence of accused No.1 that this was the reason for

falsely implicating him, there is no explanation for

arraigning accused Nos.2 and 3. Certainly, the

complainant and her husband are not having any

motive to falsely implicate accused Nos.2 and 3, who

were students at the relevant point of time. This clearly

falsifies the motive attributed to the complainant and

her husband to implicate accused No.1.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

18. It was suggested to PW.3 that she was

requested by the complainant to give evidence, which

she has admitted. As a neighbour immediately on

hearing the cries of the complainant, she and her

husband i.e., PW.4 Tippeswamy have come to the spot.

In fact their coming to the spot immediately, aborted

the attempt made by the accused No.1 and prevented

him from continuing with his attack. Otherwise,

accused No.1 would have succeeded in killing the

complainant or causing her more damage. On realizing

that some people are approaching, accused No.1 run

away. Despite thorough cross-examination of these

witnesses, the defence has failed to prove that their

evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. The defence

has failed to demonstrate that they were planted

witnesses. So far as the admission on the part of PW.3

Parvati that complainant requested her to come and

give evidence, cannot be branded as though she is a

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

planted witness. What is meant by her admission is

that since she is an eyewitness, complainant requested

her to come and give evidence. It would not make her

evidence inadmissible. After the incident and

investigation, the case would come for evidence,

sometime later and it would be natural for the

complainant remind the witnesses and request them to

come to the Court and give evidence. In fact, it is seen

in majority of cases that the accused would try to win

over the witnesses and make them hostile and resile

from their statements. Therefore, the admission on the

part of PW.3 that complainant requested her to come

and give evidence would not brand her as a planted

witness. Especially, when she has with stood the rigor

of cross examination. As a neighbor of the complainant

and injured, her presence at the place of incident is

natural.

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

19. The testimony of PW.5 Dr.Nagaveni proves

that immediately after the incident, she has examined

the complainant and found three injuries, which

corroborate with the testimony of PW.1 regarding the

assault made by accused No.1. Complainant has

suffered swelling on her occipital region, bruise is over

the left forefinger and abrasion on the right side of the

neck. PW.5 has also deposed that if a person assaulted

with rod similar to MO.2, the injuries as noted in the

Injury Certificate at Ex.P.6 are possible. During her

cross examination, PW.6 has admitted that there is

overwriting in Ex.P6, which is with regard to the date of

incident. It appears, it was previously noted as 9 and

thereafter corrected as 10. It appears to be a mistake

while writing the Injury Certificate. When the incident

has taken place on 10th, nothing was going to be

gained by making the said correction. In fact, said date

is occurring on two other places, which is not over

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

written, which goes to show that the first entry as 9

was wrong and therefore it was corrected as 10. It is

suggested to PW.6 that injury No.1 is possible by

pressure on the occipital region. Except this suggestion,

the testimony of PW.6 has practically remained

unchallenged. Thus, the evidence of PW.6 proves the

injuries suffered by the complainant and corroborate

with her testimony.

20. It is pertinent to note that after realising that

on hearing the cries of complainant, someone is coming

accused hurriedly left the place, leaving the iron rod

and plastic cover in which he was carrying the same at

the spot. Therefore, same was recovered from the spot

through spot-cum-seizer mahazar. PW.2 Basavaraj is

the witness to the same and deposed about it. He is

none other than the friend and a colleague of PW.6,

Srinivas the husband of complainant. His evidence

revealed that on hearing that his wife has been

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

assaulted, PW.6 requested him to accompany him and

accordingly he went to the house of complainant and

he was taken as witness to the spot-cum-seizure

mahazar. He has denied that no material objects were

seized from the spot and he is giving false evidence.

Recovery of the material objects from the spot is

corroborated by the evidence of PW.1.

21. PW.10 Firoz Khan is the Chief Officer of

Pattana Panchayati, Huvinahadagali. He has issued the

extract of the house where complainant was residing as

per Ex.P8. His evidence is not disputed by the defence.

PW.9 K.Syed Saifulla has registered the case and

conducted most part of the investigation. He has

handed over further investigation to CW.16 Krishna

Naik, who has filed charge sheet after collecting the

Injury Certificate.

22. Thus, through the evidence placed on record,

the prosecution has proved allegations against accused

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court on

meticulous examination of the oral and documentary

evidence has come to a correct conclusion that the

allegations made against accused are proved. The

findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is

consistent with the evidence placed on record.

Absolutely no justifiable grounds are made out by

accused No.1 to interfere with the finding of trial Court.

23. So far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned,

after collecting report from the Probation Officer, the

trial Court has granted the benefit of Probation of

Offenders Act to them. The same is not challenged

either by the State or accused Nos.2 and 3 and as such

it has attained finality.

24. So far as punishment imposed against

accused No.1 is concerned, though he is convicted also

for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and

120B of IPC, the trial Court has not imposed separate

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

punishment. So far as the offence under Section 307 of

IPC is concerned, the punishment prescribed is

imprisonment for life when hurt is caused. In other

cases, the sentence of imprisonment may extend upto

10 years and shall also liable to fine. The first blow

given on the head has caused swelling on the occipital

region. The second blow fell on the left forefinger and

caused bruise. When his attempt to assault on her head

has not resulted with the desired result, accused No.1

has also tried to strangulate the complainant. When

PWs.3 and 4 came running to the spot hearing her cries

accused No.1 left her and ran away. Having regard to

the nature of the injury sustained by the complainant,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the

quantum of punishment imposed on the accused is little

on the higher side. Therefore, instead of three years,

the accused is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 02 years 06 months.

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12786

However, the fine imposed by the trial Court is

increased to Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for 03 months. To this extent, the appeal

succeeds and accordingly the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal filed by accused No.1 under

Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the

Judgment and order dated 01.10.2016

passed in Sessions Case No.5058/2014

on the file of III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting at

Hosapete, is partly allowed.