State vs Byrareddy, Krishnareddy and Narayanaswami

B.V. Pinto, J.—Since, it is proposed to dispose of the main appeal itself, heard on IA No. 1/2013. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay of 15 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP regarding the merits of the case.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 26.11.2012 passed by the District and Session Judge, Chikkaballapur in Spl. S.C. No. 1/2009 acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 03.12.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. in Kothandlahalli Village, the respondents assembled in Sy. No. 76, New Sy. No. 121 in the land belonging to Muniyamma, mother-in-law of the complainant. The said land was measuring 1 acre 27 guntas. The complainant belongs to schedule caste. In order to dispossess Muniyamma and to wrongfully occupy the above land, it is alleged that the respondent No. 1 was removing Eucalyptus trees grown by the complainant. When she questioned, respondent No. 1 pressed her neck, pushed her on the ground, respondent No. 2 kicked her and when CW2 came to her rescue, respondent No. 3 hit her with matchu on her right index finger causing bleeding injuries. Thereafter, all the accused persons intentionally insulted the complainant and CW1 and 2 knowing fully that they belong to schedule caste community.

After the charge sheet was filed, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 13 witnesses as PW1 to 13 and got marked Exs. P1 to 9 and produced MO. 1-Chopper (matchu). The defence of accused is one of total denial. However, they have got marked Ex-D1 being the portion of Statement of PW-3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this appeal.

Out of the 15 witnesses examined for the prosecution, except PW1 and 2 all other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is a delay of 15 days in filing the compliant before the police. The history of the incident is not recorded correctly. The learned Session Judge has further observed that, there is a civil dispute between the parties in respect of the said land. Though PW-2 contends that there was blood stains on the spot, the Spot Mahazar does not indicate any blood marks on the spot and that they have reported that they were assaulted by an unknown person PW-2. Further admitted in the cross-examination that a suit in O.S. No. 226/1993 was filed on the file of Chintamani Court and the same was dismissed. It is further seen that PW-3 Muniyappa though has stated about the incident, he is none other than the brother of Muniyamma. It is further stated by PW-3 that the weapon of offence namely matchu was thrown at the scene of occurrence which is against the averments made in the Seizure Mahazar Ex-P3.

The evidence of PW-4 G.V. Narayana is to the effect that there is a civil dispute between them regarding the land and he also admits that he is a relative of accused No. 3 and that a case is pending against him u/s 307 IPC. The evidence of PW-5 also indicates that he is a close relative of PW-1 and 2 and he is not an eye-witness for the incident. He had gone to the hospital on coming to know of the incident, but complaint came to be filed 20 days thereafter. Both the witnesses PW-6 and 7 who have attested Seizure Mahazar have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

PW-9 who is an attester to Ex-P2 Spot Mahazar has also not supported the case.

PW-8 has stated that he has attested the Mahazar in the police station. Hence, the very recovery has not been proved in accordance with law.

PW-10 Medical Officer has stated that injuries sustained by PW-2 were possible by any weapon. PW-12 who is an attester of Ex-P3 has also not supported the prosecution case PW-15 and 16 are the Investigating Officers.

On a careful consideration of the above materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the charges against the accused has not been properly proved and therefore he has held that the respondents-accused are entitled for an order of acquittal. I have gone through the evidence meticulously. I do not see any good reason to admit this case for final hearing, since there are no chances of securing an order of conviction. Hence, this appeal is taken up for disposal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.