State vs Siddalingaiah and Others

N. Ananda, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of Respondents 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as accused 1 to 6) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2003.

We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri Girish, learned Counsel for accused.

Accused 1 to 6 were tried, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 326 and 506 r/w. Section 149 Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 135/2001. Therefore, the accused were before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1 /2003.

The learned Judge of the first appellate Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused for the aforestated offences. Therefore, the State is before us.

Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has taken us through evidence and judgments of the Courts below.

Accused No. 1 is the father of accused 2 to 6 and they are the residents of Kavanapura village, Ramanagar Taluk. PW-1, Ningaiah is also a resident of Kavanapura village. During the year 2000, certain civil litigations were pending between PW-1 and first accused.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.12.2000 at about 5.00 p.m., accused No. 1 was grazing his buffalo in Mulerry Garden of the brother of PW-1. When PW-1 questioned first accused as to why he is grazing his buffalo in the garden of his brother, accused 1 to 6 formed into unlawful assembly and assaulted PW-1 with clubs and sickles and caused grievous injuries. The incident of assault was witnessed by PWs.2 to 4. On the same day, at about 6.30 p.m., PW-1 was treated by PW-7 Dr. R. Raghunath in the Government Hospital at Ramanagar. After treatment, PW-1 lodged first information and set the law into motion.

The Investigating Officer visited the place of incident, seized the weapons of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted a charge sheet against accused.

During trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined, documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-3 and material objects as per M. Os. 1 and 2 were marked.

As already stated, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 326 and 506 r/w 149 I.P.C. The learned judge of the I-appellate court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.

As could be seen from the evidence of PW. 1, in relation to boundary dispute of their lands there was a civil litigation between PW. 1 and the first accused. There was enmity between the first accused and PW.1. PW''s.2 to 4 appears to have reached the place of incident after the incident.

PW. 1-Ningaiah has deposed; that accused No. 5 assaulted him with a club and accused No. 2 tried to assault him with a sickle. PW.1 when examined by the medical officer, PW.7-Dr. Raghunath in General Hospital at Ramanagar has given the history of injuries as due to assault by accused No. 2 to 4. In the earliest version given by PW.1 he has not stated about the presence or participation of other accused namely accused No. 1, 5 and 6.

PW.2-Lingaraju has deposed; that accused No. 5-Raja assaulted PW. 1 with a club; so also, accused No. 4-Kumara assaulted PW.1 with a club; accused No. 3-Puttalingaiah attempted to assault PW. 1 with a sickle. PW.2 has admitted that the incident of assault had taken place when he was in his land, which is at a distance of half a kilometer form the place of incident. It is obvious that PW.2 had reached the place of incident after the alleged incident.

PW.3- Kariyappa has deposed; that accused No. 4 assaulted PW. 1 with a club and accused No. 2 assaulted PW. 1 with a club.

PW.4-Chandramma has deposed; that accused No. 3 attempted to assault PW. 1 with a sickle.

In the first information, PW. 1 has stated that accused No. 5-Raja, accused No. 6-Doreswamy held him and twisted and trampelled him. Accused No. 4-Kumara assaulted him with a club. Accused No. 2-Nijalingaiah assaulted him on the right side of his chest and also on his right shoulder and neck with a club. Accused No. 3-Puttalingaiah threatened him to assault with a sickle. Accused No. 1 assaulted him on his back with a club. Thus, we find the evidence of PW. 1 does not find corroboration from the contents of the first information.

As per the evidence of PW. 1. first information was recorded at about 10.30 a.m. on 14.12.2000, which is contrary to the contents of The first information, which indicates that the written first information was lodged by PW. 1 at 10.30 p.m., on 13.12.2000. The first information had reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 10.55 a.m., on 14.12.2000. Therefore, this discrepancy would cast serious doubt as to the point of time at which the first information was brought into existence and also by whom the first information was brought into existence.

We see from the medical evidence of PW.7-Dr. Raghunath that PW. 1 had suffered three contusions. PW.7 has not given the length and breadth of contusions. PW.7 has not deposed that measurements of a contusion cannot be given.

PW.7 has deposed; that PW. 1 had suffered disc prolopse in C6 and C7 region. PW.7 has not produced X-rays and X-ray reports to prove that PW.1 had suffered disc prolopse in C6 and C7 region.

As already stated, there was pre existing enmity between PW. 1 and accused No. 1.

PW.4 has admitted that on the date of incident, there was a hearing of civil case pending between PW. 1 and accused.

PW.2-Lingaraju has deposed; that at the time of incident, he was working in his land, which is at a distance of half a kilometer from the place of incident. PW.2 has deposed; that, by the time he reached the place of incident, other witnesses viz., PW''s.3 and 4 were already there. In the circumstances, it looks probable that PW.2 had reached the place of incident after the alleged incident.

PW.3-Kariyappa has deposed; that the fourth accused assaulted PW.1 with a club and first accused assaulted PW. 1 with the same club and the second accused held a sickle to kill PW. 1, which is not the version given by PW. 1.

PW.4-Chandramma is related to PW.1. PW.4 has deposed; that the accused were assaulting PW.1. The second accused assaulted on the neck of PW.1, the third accused threatened to cut the limbs of PW. 1 with a sickle.

Thus, we find that there is inconsistency between the evidence given by PW. 1 and contents of the first information. PWs.2 to 4 have given inconsistent and contradictory evidence regarding assault on PW.1. The medical evidence given by PW.7 does not support the direct evidence given by PW.1. The evidence of investigating officer regarding seizure of weapons of assault does not inspire confidence. The evidence of PW. 1 that his statement (first information) was recorded during the morning of 14.12.2000 runs contrary to the contents of first information, which indicates that the first information was recorded at 10.30. p.m., on 13.12.2000.

As already stated, there was enmity between PW. 1 and first accused. In the circumstances, the learned trial judge should have closely scrutinised the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in particular, the evidence of PW''s. 1 to 4. The learned trial judge without noticing the discrepancies referred to above has held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324. 326 and 506 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 to 6 are from the same family. Accused No. 1 is the father of accused No. 2 to 6. In the circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 that they had formed of unlawful assembly looks incredible.

PW. 1 has not deposed that accused Mo. 1 to 6 were grazing buffaloes in the mulberry garden of elder brother of PW. 1. PW.1 has not deposed as to where from accused No. 2 to 6 came and joined accused No. 1. The learned trial judge has not noticed this discrepancy. The learned trial judge has not noticed that the evidence given by PW''s. 1 to 4 is inconsistent and contradictory. The learned trial judge has not noticed the inconsistency and contradictions between the direct evidence and medical evidence.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned judge of the I-appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and the impugned judgment does not call for interference.

In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.