State vs Kariyappa and Others

N. Ananda, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of Respondents 1 to 13 (hereinafter referred to as accused 1 to 13) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 304 r/w. Section 149 IPC.

We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri M.R. Madhusudhan, learned Counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.

In brief, the case of prosecution and inter-se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses is stated as follows:

PW-1, Sannappa and PW-4 Gangadharaiah are the brothers of deceased Kenchaiah. PW-3, Nagaraju is the son of deceased Kenchaiah. PW-6, Renukamma, PW-8, Kamalamma and PW-11, Girija are the daughters of PW-4, Gangadharaiah. PW-5, Thayamma is the wife of PW-4, Gangadharaiah. There was enmity between the family members of PW-4, Gangadharaiah and the family members of accused. At the relevant time, deceased Kenchaiah was aged about 65 years and he was suffering from high blood pressure and he had suffered a paralytic stroke.

It is the case of prosecution that on 17.10.2002, accused 1 to 13 armed with stones and clubs formed into unlawful assembly came near the house of PW-4, Gangadharaiah and picked up quarrel. Accused 1 to 13 in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly assaulted PWs. 1 and 4 to 7 and deceased Kenchaiah with stones and clubs and caused injuries. Accused No. 1, Kariyappa assaulted on the chest of deceased with a stone and the other accused fisted and kicked him. On the same day at about 10.00 a.m., deceased Kenchaiah succumbed to injuries in the Government Hospital at Turuvekere.

PW-1, Sannappa lodged first information and set the law into motion. The Investigating Officer on completing the investigation submitted charge sheet; against accused for the aforestated offences.

On behalf of prosecution, PWs. 1 to, 16 were examined and documents were marked as per Exs.P-1 to P-19 and material objects as per M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked.

On behalf of accused, a xerox copy of the first information report registered in Crime No. 168/2002 was produced.

The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties acquitted the accused. Therefore, the State is before this Court.

The defence has disputed that the death of Kenchaiah was homicidal. After going through the medical evidence given by PW-10, Dr. B.V. Channabasavaiah as per Exs.P-10 and P-11, the contents of postmortem examination report marked as Ex.P-9 and the further opinion furnished by PW-12, Rajanna, as per Ex.P-12 we find that there is justification in the contention of defence. PW-12, Rajanna has deposed that, he did not notice the external or infernal injuries on the person of deceased.

PW-10, Dr. B.V. Channabasavaiah has deposed that the death of Kenchaiah was due to high blood pressure. He has also deposed that on examination of kidneys and cardia, lie noticed that, deceased Kenchaiah was suffering from blood pressure since long before the date of incident and he had suffered a paralytic stroke.

The absence of external and internal injuries on the person of deceased and the opinion furnished by PW 10 would belie the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the first accused had assaulted on the chest of deceased with a stone and the other accused had assaulted and kicked deceased. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that death of Kenchaiah was homicidal and accused No. 1 had assaulted the deceased with a stone and the other accused had fisted and kicked the deceased.

PW-1, Sannappa, PW-4, Gangadharaiah, PW-5, Thayamma, PW-6, Renukamma and PW-7, Rekha are the injured eye witnesses. PW-1 had deposed that at the time of assault, accused No. 4 S.K. Raveesh assaulted on the head of PW-4, Gangadharaiah with a club and he suffered a bleeding injury. When PW-1 intervened, accused No. 6 Renukamma pelted a stone on the head of PW-1 and he suffered bleeding injury. The wound certificate relating to PW-1 marked as per Ex.P-4 and the evidence of PW-10 would reveal that PW-1 had suffered an abrasion measuring 1 cm. � 0.5 cm. over occipital region. Thus, evidence of PW-1 that he was hit by a stone and suffered bleeding injury does not find corroboration from evidence of PW-10 and contents of wound certificate marked as Ex. P-4,

PW-4, Gangadharaiah has deposed that accused No. 4, S.K. Raveesh assaulted on the head of PW-4 with a club and caused a bleeding injury. Ex.P-5 the wound certificate relating to PW-4, Gangadharaiah would reveal that he had suffered an abrasion measuring 1 cm. � 0.5 cm. on the right side of his forehead. If PW-4 had suffered a bleeding injury that would have found a place in the wound certificate. PW-10 has not deposed that PW-4 had suffered a bleeding injury to his head. Therefore, evidence of PW-4 does not find support from medical evidence.

.12. PW-5, Thayamma has deposed that accused No. 4, Raveesh assaulted PW-4 (her husband) with a club. PW-4 suffered bleeding injury to his head. As already stated, PW-4 had not suffered any bleeding injury to his head. PW-5 has deposed that accused No. 6 Shantaraju assaulted on her chest with a stone. The wound certificate relating to Thayamma marked as Ex.P-6 reveals that she had suffered an abrasion measuring 2 cm. � 1 cm. on her right forearm. Therefore, direct evidence of PW-5 and medical evidence are inconsistent.

PW-6, Renukamma has deposed that accused No. 10, Nagamma assaulted on her right finger with a stone. The wound certificate of Renukamma (as per Ex.P-7) reveals that she has suffered an abrasion over her right ring finger. Therefore, her evidence is entirely inconsistent with the medical evidence.

PW-7, Rekha had deposed that accused No. 10, Nagamma and accused No, 11, Manjuia assaulted her chest with stones. As per wound certificate (Ex.P-8), PW-7 had suffered a contusion over her right cheek. Therefore, her evidence is entirely inconsistent with medical evidence.

Though PW-8, Kamalamma deposed that she had been assaulted by accused No. 6 with a stone, she had not suffered any injury. She was not examined or treated by PW-10.

We have made a careful scrutiny and comparison of medical evidence and direct evidence, in view of the admitted fact, on the same day, some of the accused had lodged first information against. Kumara S/o. Gangadharaiah (PW-4), PW-9, Munisiddaiah, PW-3, Nagaraju, Ashok S/o. Sannappa, PW-6 Renukamma, PW-5, Thayamma. The case was registered in Crime No. 168/2002 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 304 r/w. Section 149 IPC.

As per the averments of first information registered in Crime No. 168/2002, some of the accused in this case were assaulted by the above witnesses at about 8.30 a.m. on 17.10.2002 near their house. PW-1 has admitted that a charge sheet had been filed against him and some of the prosecution witnesses of the instant case. The Investigating Officer has pleaded his ignorance. Thus, the prosecution has not come out with true version of incident. The injuries suffered by some of the accused have not been explained by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has not clarified as to Crime No. 168/2002 which was registered against the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has come out with one sided version. The first information report and the evidence of prosecution witnesses would manifest that the first informant and some of the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated the accused alleging that they had caused homicidal death of Kenchaiah whereas, the medical evidence reveals that Kenchaiah died due to cardio respiratory failure. Therefore, we hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence.

The learned trial Judge, on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.