Rangappa and Others vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The aggrieved accused Nos. 1 to 6 have challenged the judgment and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC in S.C. No. 64/2008 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Raichur vide Order dated 28.07.2010.

The trial Court has sentenced the accused persons for the above said offences imposing different periods of imprisonment and fine. I have heard the arguments of Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

I have carefully perused the evidence led by the prosecution before the trial Court and also judgment of the trial Court. On over all re-analysis of the entire materials on record the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is;

"Whether the trial Court has committed any error in convicting the accused persons for the above said offences and sentenced them according". 4. Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously argued that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. If the materials available on record are appreciated in a proper perspective the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. He also contends that even for any reasons if this Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of conviction is proper and need not be interfered then the sentence passed by the trial Court is exorbitant and considering the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused persons reasonable modification may be made so far as sentence is concerned.

On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it discloses the brief factual matrix of the case are as under:

"A person by name Narasimhalu (P.W.1) has laid FIR as per Ex. P1 on 03.11.2007 stating that himself and other prosecution witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 who are his wife and brothers are the residents of Wadlamdoddi village in Raichur District. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 are also the residents of the same village and they are in fact close relative cousins in relationship. It is stated that there is a land bearing Sy. No. 16 in the said village, the complainant and his family members on one side and accused persons on the other side have divided the said land into equal half share measuring 3 acres 4 guntas each and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective portions of their lands. It is further alleged that the accused persons particularly accused No. 4/Anjanayya and accused No. 1/Rangappa used to quarrel with the complainant and his family members on the ground that the complainant has acquired more land than the land allotted to the accused persons. In this context it is alleged that on 03.11.2007 at about 6.00 a.m. when the complamant/PW1 and his wife/P.W.2 had been to the land, at that time, the accused No. 4/Anjanaya came to the said land and questioned as to why the complainant is cultivating the land and he called the complainant to come over to the village to resolve the dispute with the elders of the village. The complainant conceded for the said request and all of them were proceeding towards the village. In this context, it is stated that when they reached near the land of one Bhimareddy, at that time, the accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 along with other persons came their and wrongfully restrained the complainant and his wife and abused and assaulted them. It is specific case of the prosecution that accused No. 1/Rangappa assaulted on the head of the complainant and accused No. 2/Rajamma assaulted P.W.2/Padmamma and at that time P.W.3/Anjanayya and P.W.4/Earappa came there to resolve the dispute but the accused Nos. 4 and 6 have assaulted P.Ws.3 and 4 on different parts of the body with clubs and all the accused persons joined together and assaulted P.Ws.1 to 4. At the time of incident Bhimareddy, Rangareddy and Narasareddy of there village came to the spot to resolve the dispute and thereafter the injured were taken to the hospital and they have taken treatment and thereafter a complaint came to be lodged making such allegations. The police after due investigation submitted the charge sheet against those accused persons and a case was committed and registered in S.C. No. 64/2008." 6. The record also discloses that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were arrested on 03.11.2007 and accused Nos. 5 and 6 on 05.11.2007 and they were released on bail on 24.11.2007. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined as many as 12 witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Ex. P1 to 8 and material objects MOs.1 to 5. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as the accused did not choose to lead any defense evidence on their side. The trial Court rendered the judgment and ordered sentence accordingly after hearing the arguments of both the sides.

On careful revaluation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, who are injured eye-witnesses to the incident, they have categorically stated about the contention taken up in the FIR. It is in the examination-in-chief itself that, they have categorically admitted about the relationship between themselves and the accused persons and the dispute with regard to the landed property and also they have specifically stated about the overt acts of accused Nos. 1 to 6 in assaulting them with the clubs and with the hands etc. and sustaining the bleeding injuries by them. In the evidence of these witnesses the learned counsel contended that there is discrepancy with regard to the registration of the case. The P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the police have come to the hospital to record the statement and to register the case but the investigating officer says that the witnesses had been to the police station and lodged the complaint. Further, the learned counsel drawn my attention to the evidence of P.W.9/Shankarappa, who has stated that he took the complainant Narasimhalu to the police station and the complaint was lodged. Though there is some discrepancy with regard to the lodgment of the complaint nevertheless lodging of the complaint is not in dispute, registration of the case is not in dispute and filing of charge sheet are all not in dispute. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who have categorically stated about the injuries sustained by them, sequence of events continued regarding admitted in the Hospital. The evidence of the doctor who has examined these witnesses fortifies the injuries sustained by the injured persons.

P.W.11/Dr.Shoba Nayak, who was working as Senior Specialist in District Hospital at Raichur, she has categorically stated that she examined P.W.3/Anjaneya on 03.11.2007 at 9.30 a.m. and noted that he has suffered two injuries (1) Abrasion over the right fore arm 1 1/2 cm x 5 cm. (2) Abrasion of right hand over the left thumb at the base of thumb 2 cm. At 9.35 a.m. she examined P.W.2/Padmamma and found one lacerated wound over parietal region left side measuring 4 x 1 cm. At about 9.45 a.m. she further examined P.W.4/Earappa and found no injuries on his body. She also examined P.W.1/Narasimhalu at 4.15 p.m. and found two injuries (1) Lacerated wound over right hand measuring 2 x 1 cm and another Lacerated wound over left parietal region 3x11/2 cm. She accordingly gave the wound certificates, which are marked at Ex. P5 to P8. According to the doctor all the injuries found on the injured persons were simple in nature and they would ordinarily heal up even without there being any treatment and there was absolutely no likelihood of death of any person due to those injuries.

Looking to the above said evidence of the doctor, it corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that, immediately after the incident the injured persons had been to the hospital and taken treatment. The independent witnesses though not fully supported the prosecution but stated about the quarrel between accused and P.Ws.1 to 4. Mr. Bheemareddy/P.W.5 and Narasreddy/P.W.6, who are the actual persons at the time of incident, though they have not in detail in a vivid manner stated about the evidence. Nevertheless they have categorically stated that, on that particular day of the incident they saw the quarrel between the accused persons and P.Ws.1 to 4 and that the P.Ws.1 to 4 have sustained simple injuries. Even in the course of cross-examination they have not fully supported the case of the prosecution they have not stated about the specific overt acts of the accused persons but as I have said that sequence of events are fully supported by these two witnesses. Other witnesses examined before the Court are with regard to the spot mahazar and recovery of some weapons at the spot they are insignificant for consideration, investigating officer has also stated about the recording of the statement of the witnesses, seizure of the articles and particularly to be noted that he has stated about the arrest of the accused/petitioner on different dates. Even on reevaluating the evidence on record there is no strong reasons to disbelieve the injured eye-witnesses and the doctor. Therefore, I found there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment of the conviction rendered by the trial Court and the same has to be confirmed.

Coming to the second limb of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel with regard to the sentence, of course it is an admitted fact that all the accused persons and P.Ws.1 to 4 are the residents of village and also they are having some dispute with regard to their lands. It appears the incident happened in a spur of moment, if the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with the FIR, it is seen, the other accused persons except accused No. 4/Anjanayya who called P.W.1 to go over to the village to resolve the dispute the other accused persons might not be knowing that these persons were coming towards the village. However, incidentally they were also coming towards the village in the midst near the land of Bheemareddy they are met with each other and a quarrel appears to have been taken place. Therefore, it cannot be said that, with a sole intention to assault or abuse the P.Ws.1 to 4, these accused persons came there and committed such offences. The other two injured persons P.Ws.3 and 4, they only came there for the purpose of resolving the dispute. It cannot be said that at any stretch of imagination that accused persons knew that these two persons would come there to resolve the dispute. Therefore, looking to the garnet of the entire case, it appears the incident happened in a spur of moment and due to some verbal altercation between the parties. Therefore, the incident cannot be said to had happened with any premeditation or with a specific intention. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel the sentence passed by the trial Court is little bit harsh, it requires to be reduced. Further added to the above said circumstances, the accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 are village farmers eking their livelihood by means of doing agriculture and further there are absolutely no allegations whatsoever against accused persons, except the incident they were not indulged in any other offences and it appears it is the first incident in their life.

Under the above said circumstances, now let me see the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The trial Court has imposed sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of IPC independently. But all the three offences having common ingredients. When section 148 of IPC is invoked and sentenced by the Court, there need not be any independent sentence to be awarded so far as Section 147 and 143 of IPC are concerned because Section 143 of IPC refers to the Constitution of an unlawful assembly and Section 147 of IPC refers to the Constitution of unlawful assembly for the purpose of noting and Section 148 of IPC refers to the Constitution of an unlawful assembly for the purpose of noting with deadly weapons. Therefore, if once the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC is established, it emerges Section 143 of IPC and also Section 147 of IPC merges with Section 148 of IPC. Therefore, there is no need to impose punishment independently for Section 143 and 147 of IPC.

In view of the above said circumstances, the sentence passed by the trial Court is modified to the following effect:

"(a) The accused persons are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(b) They shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(c) They are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(d) The accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(e) They shall also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(f) The accused shall also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) r/w 149 of IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months."

The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is hereby substituted by the period of imprisonment already undergone by accused Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. 21 days of imprisonment during the investigation period and accused Nos. 5 and 6 had already undergone 19 days imprisonment during the investigation period. Therefore, the said imprisonment already undergone by them is treated as substantive sentence against them.

Out of the fine amount imposed after deposit of the same, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid each to P.Ws.1 to 4 as compensation.

In default of payment of fine the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.