Ramesha vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the State Public Prosecutor.

It was the case of the complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saligrama Police Station, that on 12.3.2005, at about 11.30 p.m., he along with P.W. 2, was on beat duty at Saligrama town and around 11.45 p.m., it was noticed that a motor cycle was parked on a public road, causing hindrance to the movement of the general public. The complainant had questioned accused No. 3, who was present on the scene, as to who was the owner of the motor cycle. Accused No. 3 had failed to reply and on repeated questioning by PWs. 1 and 2 as to who was the owner of the motor cycle and that the vehicle should be moved, accused No. 3 is said to have reported that he had lost the key to the motor cycle and that if they helped him to look for it, it was possible to move the vehicle, at which P.W. 1 taking offense to the rude reply, is said to have got out of the jeep and told accused No. 3 to name himself. Since he did not disclose his name and address, he warned accused No. 3 that if he did not remove the vehicle, he would take away the vehicle. While the argument was on, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1,2, 4 to 8 had joined the scene and all of them had prevented PWs. 1 and 2 from discharging their duties. Therefore, P.W. 2 had contacted a Head Constable, P.W. 8, through his wireless set and had informed him of the circumstance. It transpires that the Head Constable had immediately arrived on the scene and as stated by PWs. 1, 2 and 8, all the accused had together abused and threatened PWs. 1, 2 and 8, while discharging their official duty and accused No. 3 had gone to the extent of challenging PWs. 1, 2 and 8 to move the motor cycle or taking any action against them and they were threatened that if they did so, on the very next day, there would be 20000 people present before the Police Station and that the said witnesses would be stripped and paraded naked if they took any such action and in the process, accused No. 3 is said to have twisted the little finger of P.W. 1 resulting in a fracture. It is in this background that a case was registered on the intervening night of 12/13.3.2005 and it is thereafter that further investigation is said to have been conducted and a case was registered against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 179 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''IPC, for brevity) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution having tendered evidence through PWs. 1 to 10 and having got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.8 and after recording the statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and after hearing both sides, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 3 refused to answer the question put to him though he was bound to answer the same and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 179 of Indian Penal Code?

Whether the prosecution has proved that A1 to A8 abused Cw1 and 2 in a filthy language and caused obstruction to perform their official duty in furtherance of common intention and accused No. 3 twisted the left hand little finger, causing fracture and grievous injury when they were discharging their official duty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?"

The court below has answered point No. 1 in the negative and point No. 2 partly in the affirmative and convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each insofar as accused Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 are concerned and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- against accused No. 3. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants in the respective appeals would submit that from the allegations in the complaint and material evidence that is tendered, it is brought on record that P.W. 1 did not have a good track record as a Police Officer and he was a controversial figure. The allegation that accused No. 3 having parked the vehicle in a ''no parking zone'', that it was hindering the smooth flow of traffic, is itself a misleading statement. There was no traffic in Saligrama village at 11.45 p.m., except the jeep in which PWs. 1, and 2 were moving about and this would indicate the manner in which a false case has been foisted against the accused. The manner in which a case is sought to be built up by the narration of the circumstances leading to the alleged assault on P.W. 1 is also not readily believable if the vehicle was parked in a ''no parking area'' and if it was an impediment to the smooth flow of the traffic or otherwise, to the smooth movement of the general public, it was open for PWs. 1 and 2 to have moved the vehicle to a side, instead of creating a fuss, in ascertaining as to who was the owner and calling upon all and sundry to comply with their direction that the vehicle be moved forthwith. Hence, it clearly points to a high handed action on the part of PWs. 1 and 2 late in the night, apparently seeking to foist a false case against all the accused.

The further contention that there were more than 20 people at the scene of occurrence and the said witnesses PWs. 1 and 2 and 8 having readily recognised all of them or consistently having identified them, is also not a possibility, which can be readily accepted. There is no material evidence brought on record to indicate that all the accused were associated with each other or they were known to each other or otherwise related in any fashion.

The further accusation that he had used an unpleasant language against the police officers and this being sought to be established on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 8, who is said to have come there on being summoned by P.W. 2 on his wireless set, would give a lie to the allegation that P.W. 8 had, all along heard the abuses hurled at PWs. 1 and 2 by all the accused, for it would have taken him some time to reach the scene and it is therefore not readily acceptable that the accused continued to abuse PWs. 1 and 2 all along, till such time that P.W. 8 came there from wherever he was, to reach the spot. This would again indicate that a false case has been foisted against the accused based on the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 8, which could not be consistent.

Further, it is pointed out that there was a common intention in assaulting or causing any kind of injury to the complainant. The injury, which is sought to be established by the evidence of a Medical Practitioner, is only to the effect that his little finger was seen to have been fractured and that the injury as such could be caused in any number of ways. The further evidence necessary to show that there was indeed a fracture was with reference to a X''Ray Report said to have been generated after examination of the injured. However, no such X''Ray report was brought on record. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellants would point out that the manner in which the prosecution has sought to prove that the incident had occurred in the manner, as stated and that P.W. 1 had been injured by a fracture having been caused to his little finger was not established beyond all reasonable doubt.

The entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 8. Though it could not have been possible for P.W. 8 to be present on the scene from inception, he has sought to support the testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 in relation to events that had apparently occurred even before he came on the scene and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is hollow and is engineered only to foist a false case and to seek prosecution of the accused and hence, the learned Counsel seeks acquittal of the appellants.

The learned State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would seek to justify the judgment of the court below.

From a reading of the judgment and from a perusal of the record, the reasoning of the trial court commences from Paragraph 30 of the judgment. The court below has merely reiterated the case as put forth by the prosecution and has referred to the examination and cross-examination of the Medical Practitioner, who had testified as to the injury having been suffered by P.W. 1 and after addressing the defence canvassed by the accused, has placed reliance on judgments of this court in holding that the evidence of police officers cannot be lightly brushed aside in seeking to bring home the charges in a given case and has proceeded to hold that the evidence of P.W. 1, was duly corroborated by PWs. 2 and 8 and other witnesses, as to P.W. 1 having suffered a fracture of his little finger and therefore has held that the prosecution had proved its case against all the accused.

Insofar as accused No. 3 is concerned, he has been punished only with a fine whereas the other accused Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 have been mulcted with the punishment of imprisonment, as well, for a period of three years. This is not justified for the reason that the manner in which the prosecution has sought to make out a case against the accused on the basis of the evidence of PWs land 2 is itself not readily acceptable. The incident is said to have occurred at 11.45 p.m when there was no traffic on the road. However, the contention that there was a two wheeler parked in a manner that it was, hindering the free flow of traffic is itself a statement, which cannot be accepted. Even it was so, it was always open for PWs. 1 and 2 to have quietly moved the vehicle to a place, which would make it less of nuisance. But they had insisted on calling upon all the accused to name themselves and to point out the owner of the vehicle and to move the vehicle. This had apparently lead to exchange of words, which is sought to be grossly exaggerated in the complaint being lodged. The only injury that appears to have been caused is the alleged fracture of the little finger of P.W. 1. This however, is not established. In that, there was no X''Ray report filed before the court. Therefore, except the self-serving statements of the witnesses that there was injury caused to the little finger of P.W. 1, there is no acceptable evidence before the court as to the injury having been caused.

In the result, there is no serious offence made out against any of the accused, except the alleged exchange of words, which cannot also be said to have been established. The several decisions referred to in the context of acceptability of the evidence of police officers cannot be doubted nor can there be any disagreement with regard to this. However, the statement that the evidence of the police officers ought to be considered in the light of the given facts and circumstances, would also have to be kept in view.

Consequently, no case is made out against the accused. The appellants are therefore acquitted. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellants.