Shivannegowda vs The State and Others

P.D. Waingankar, J.

By judgment dated 1.4.2011 in C.C. No. 7/2010, the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Mysore acquitted all the accused No. 1 to 16 of the charges levelled against them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the complainant Shivannegowda-the victim has filed this appeal.

The facts in brief which gave rise to this appeal are as under:--

"Shivannegwoda, his wife Rajamma and his sons Ramalinga and Siddaraju were accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.C. No. 191/2009 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. They were charged for the offences punishable under sections 143, 504, 323, 324, 326, 307, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The allegations made against them were that on 11.5.2008 at about 7.00 a.m., at Gopalapura village, there was quarrel between Yashodamma on one hand and Shivannegowda and his wife Rajamma on the other hand. Shivannegowda and his wife abused Yashodamma when Yashodamma asked them as to why they tried to remove the drainage pipe. Somehow the quarrel was pacified. Even then, Shivannegowda and his wife continued to abuse Yashodamma. At about 7.30 p.m., when Yashodamma and her family members asked Shivannegowda as to why he is abusing, at that time, Shivannegowda went inside his house, came with a knife alongwith his wife and children and stabbed Yashodamma, Shankaregowda, Rajendra, Laxmamma, Nagegowda with knife and caused grievous injuries. They were taken to the hospital and a crime came to be registered based on the complaint of Rajendra against Shivannegowda, his wife and two sons. Since Shivannegowda attacked as many as seven members and caused stab injuries, their followers were angry upon Shivannegowda and his family members. They trespassed into the house of Shivannegowda and ransacked and caused damage to household articles. In the mean-while, Shivannegowda was arrested and he was remanded to custody. So his son-in-law Mahadeva lodged a complaint against as many as 16 accused persons the followers of Shankaregowda. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Mahadeva, case came to be registered on the file of JMFC-II Court at Mysore for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC against 16 accused persons. Since it was a counter case arising out of the same incident, it came to be withdrawn by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, where Session Case No. 191/2008 was pending."

The gist of the allegations made against the accused in the complaint filed by Mahadeva P.W.-10 were on 11.5.2008 at about 9.00 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 16 formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like bricks, stones and trespassed into the house of Shivannegowda and caused damage not only to his house but also household articles such as TV, chairs, fan to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

The accused having denied the charges levelled against them, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses and marked 19 documents apart from M.O. 1 to 5 to bring home the guilt of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering the submission made by the Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the accused by judgment dated: 1.4.2011 acquitted all the accused of all the charges levelled against them. Therefore this appeal by the victim-Shivannegowda.

I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned HCGP for the respondent No. 1 State and the accused. Perused the records and the judgment passed by the court below.

It is borne out from the records that S.C. No. 191/2008 ended in conviction of Shivannegowda and his son Ramalinga, while acquitting his wife Rajamma and another son Siddaraju. Both Shivannegowda and Ramalinga were convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 IPC. When the instant case was filed, Shivannegowda was in jail. However, complaint came to be filed by Mahadeva P.W.-10 his Son-in-law. After filing of the complaint by Mahadeva P.W.-10, Shivannegowda appears to have forwarded another complaint in respect of the very same incident through jail. However, the case proceeded on the basis of complaint filed by Mahadeva. But Mahadeva who was examined as P.W.-10 turned total hostile to his case, which made the learned Sessions Judge to acquit all the accused.

It is necessary to go through the evidence of Mahadeva who was examined as P.W.-10. He has deposed that in the month of May 2005 he did not go to Gopalapura Village, he is not aware if accused quarreled with his father-in-law and mother-in-law or having come to their house and caused damage to the house, he has not seen it. He has deposed even next day of the incident, he did not go to the house of his father-in-law, he did not go to Jaipur Police Station to give complaint and while he had been to Mysore, police called him to the Police Station, assaulted him and took his signature on a written paper. Though he was treated by Public Prosecutor and cross examined, it did not materialize.

When the complainant himself has given a complete go-bye to the contents of complaint (Ex P-17), there was no other go for the Sessions Judge than to acquit the accused of all the charges levelled against them. The evidence of other witnesses viz., Shivannegowda and Rajamma-the father-in-law and mother-in-law does not inspire the confidence of the Court, since it all started due to the attack by Shivannagowda and Shankaregowda and others with a deadly weapon like knife. Both of them are interested witnesses. P.W.-7 Ramalinga, is the son of Shivannegowda. Ningegowda P.W.-9 aged about 80 years though supported the case, he admits that he has weak eye sight and that he had not seen how many persons had gathered at the place of incident. Moreover he has pleaded ignorance about previous incident wherein 6 persons were stabbed by Shivannegowda. P.W.-1 Swamygowda, P.W.-2 Kempegowda, P.W.-3 Byregowda, P.W.-4 Puttegowda, P.W.-8 Sannegowda all turned hostile to the prosecution case. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were police witnesses. As such, the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly acquitted all the accused. On my re-appreciation, I do not find any illegality committed by the Sessions Judge. The appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed.