State of Karnataka vs S.M. Krishna, Ramesh, Shekara and Mariswamy

N. Ananda, J.—The respondents (accused No. 1. to 4) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 448 and 427 r/w 34 IPC and also of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of aforestated offences. Therefore, the State is before this court. I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State. The learned counsel for accused is absent.

The accused was tried for following charges:

Firstly on 15.8.2006 by 8.00 p.m., near the house of C.W. 1 Subbaiah, S/o. Nagamurthy in Vaddara Colony, Kiragavalu Village, Malavalli Taluk with a common intention of assaulting him and others the first of you assaulted C.W. 1 with a ''Godamatte'' and the first and 3rd of you assaulted C.W. 4 Nagaraju with a ''Godamatte'' and voluntarily caused simple hurt to them and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 324 r/w/s 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly on the same day, at the same time and at the same place in furtherance of the common intention the 2nd and 4th of you assaulted C.W. 2 Nagamurthy S/o. Nagaiah, C.W. 4 Nagaraju S/o. Nagaiah and C.W. 5 Subbaiah S/o. Turak Subbaiah by hands and voluntarily caused simple hurt to them and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w/s 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

Thirdly on the same day, at the same time and at the same place in furtherance of the common intention you trespassed into the house of C.W. 1 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 448 r/w/s 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

Fourthly, on the same day, at the same time and the same place you in furtherance of the common intention pelted stones at the house of C.W. 1 and caused damage to the tiles and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 427 r/w/s 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

Fifthly on the same day, at the same time and at the same place in furtherance of the common intention you threatened to kill C.W. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506 r/w/s 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

Sixthly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place you abused the above persons belonging to Vaddara'' community with an intention to humiliate them in public view and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within my cognizance.

The learned trial judge has disbelieved the evidence of injured witnesses. The learned trial judge has found discrepancies in the contents of first information and evidence of the first informant. The learned trial judge has found inconsistency between direct evidence and medical evidence.

The learned trial judge has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses that accused No. 1 to 4 had abused P.W. 1 by taking out the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate him in public vision.

The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 8.00 p.m. on 15.08.2006 near the house of one Subbaiah (P.W. 1) in Vaddara Colony of Kiragavalu village, Malavalli Taluk. Accused No. 1 to 4 are residents of Sabbanahalli village, Maddur Taluk.

P.W. 1-Subbaiah is the first informant. P.W. 1 has deposed; that on 15.08.2006, at about 8.00 p.m., when he was in front of his house in Vaddara Colony accused No. 1 to 4 and other five persons came near his house; one Sathisha who is the relative of accused No. 1 had assaulted the brother of P.W. 1; therefore, he had given a complaint; accused No. 1 and others insisted P.W. 1 to withdraw the complaint; when P.W. 1. refused, accused abused him by taking out the name of his caste; accused No. 1 assaulted him with a Godamatte (branch of coconut tree) and also abused him by using vulgar language; when the witnesses intervened, they were also assaulted by the accused; the accused trespassed into the house of P.W. 1 and damaged the utensils; P.W. 1 lodged the first information as per Ex. P1; P.W. 4 had suffered injuries; other witnesses including P.W. 1 had not suffered injuries.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that one Sathish, the son of elder sister of first accused is a resident of Vaddara Colony of Kirugavalu village; at the time of incident, 8-9 persons had come near his house; those persons demanded P.W. 1 to withdraw the complaint; the neighbours of P.W. 1 had not come near the place of incident; in the first information, he has not given the names of other accused. He has denied the suggestion that P.W. 1, his brother Nagesha were visiting the house of Sathisha and they were teasing his daughter Geetha; in that connection, there was quarrel between them.

The first information of the incident was lodged by P.W. 1 at about 11.00 a.m., on 15.08.2006. In the first information, apart from the name of first accused he has not given the names of accused No. 2 to 4. He has stated that accused No. 1 along with 8-9 persons had come and they demanded him to withdraw the complaint. He has not stated that accused No. 1 to 4 had abused him by taking out the name of his caste. On the other hand, he has stated that about 8-9 persons came and abused him. P.W. 1 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused No. 1 and others however, he had not suffered any injuries. The evidence of P.W. 1 that he was attacked by 8-9 persons and he had not suffered injuries looks improbable. P.W. 1 has categorically admitted that when the incident of assault took place, the neighbours had not come near the place of incident. Even then, he has given the names of several persons as witnesses to incident. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 does not find corroboration from the contents of first information.

The evidence of P.W. 2-Nagamurthy is vague and omnibus. P.W. 2 has deposed; that on the date of incident, accused came and abused him by taking the name of their caste without reference to any of the prosecution witnesses.

During cross-examination, he has admitted accused No. 1 and 10 other persons had come near the house of P.W. 1. When the accused were quarrelling with P.W. 1 and 2 the neighbours had not come to the place of incident. The evidence of P.W. 2 that accused had come along with 10 persons; all of them abused P.W. 1 by taking the name of his caste looks improbable. P.W. 2 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused with Godamatte (branch of coconut tree) even then, he had not suffered injuries. This would improbable his evidence.

P.W. 3-Jayamma is the mother of P.W. 1 and wife of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 has given altogether a different version. P.W. 3 has deposed; that on the date of incident, accused No. 1 to 4 came near their house and demanded P.W. 1 to withdraw the accused. When P.W. 1 refused, accused No. 1 to 4 abused him by taking out the name of his caste.

During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted that there was exchange of words between P.W. 1 and accused for about half an hour. The neighbours had not come when the incident of assault took place. Her son Nagesha came out after the incident. She was not aware of the names of accused or their address. PW1 has given altogether a different version of incident.

P.W. 4-Nagaraju has deposed; that he was assaulted in the incident and he had suffered injuries. P.W. 4 has deposed; that he suffered injuries on his forehead. P.W. 4 has deposed; that he was assaulted by accused No. 1 and 4 with Godamatte (branch of coconut tree). The medical evidence given by Dr. H.P. Manchegowda (P.W. 6) does not support the evidence of P.W. 4.

As per evidence of P.W. 6-Dr. Manchegowda P.W. 4 had suffered lacerated injury on the right head and lacerated injury measuring 1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm on the middle of right forearm. If accused No. 1 to 4 had assaulted P.W. 4 with a Godamatte (branch of coconut tree) he would have suffered linear contusions. Above all, P.W. 4 has given altogether a different version. P.W. 4 has deposed; that along with accused No. 1 to 4 about 8-9 persons had come; they had come on scooters; there was discussion between P.W. 1 and the above said persons for about one hour. Therefore, version given by P.W. 4 is entirely different from the version given by PW''s.1 to 3.

P.W. 5-Subbaiah is stated to be an eyewitness. P.W. 5 has deposed; that accused No. 1 to 4 came to the place of incident on motorcycles and abused P.W. 1 for giving a complaint against them; the accused assaulted P.W. 1 with a Godamatte (branch of coconut tree); when P.W. 5 interfered.. he was also assaulted by the accused however, he had not suffered injuries.

During cross-examination, he has admitted that he was a neighbor of P.W. 4. He has admitted that the incident took place for about two hours but, the neighbours of P.W. 1 had not come near the place of incident. They were standing at a distance; they were watching the incident. The evidence of P.W. 5 that he was assaulted by accused and he did not suffer injuries cannot be accepted.

P.W. 7-Maladri is the nephew of P.W. 1. P.W. 7 has deposed; that on the date of incident, at about 8.00 p.m., about 15 persons had come near the house of P.W. 1; P.W. 7 reached the place; accused No. 1 demanded P.W. 1 to withdraw the complaint which had been filed for assaulting his brother; P.W. 1 refused to withdraw the complaint; Accused No. 1 abused P.W. 1 by taking the name of his caste; Accused No. 3 and 6 other persons assaulted P.W. 1 with a Godamatte (branch of coconut tree). At this juncture, it is relevant to notice that P.W. 1 has not stated that accused No. 1 has abused him by taking the name of his caste. P.W. 1 has not deposed that accused No. 3 and 6 persons assaulted him with a Godamatte (branch of coconut tree).

During cross-examination, P.W. 7 has deposed; that he was not aware of the names of persons who had come along with accused No. 1 to 4. The quarrel took place for about 45 minutes. The people from his colony came to the place of incident after the incident. Thus, P.W. 7 has given altogether a different version of the incident.

P.W. 9-Kondaiah who is stated to have witnessed the incident has given altogether a different version. P.W. 9 has deposed; that accused No. 1 demanded P.W. 1 to withdraw the complaint; P.W. 1 refused to withdraw the complaint; accused No. 1 to 4 trespassed into the house of P.W. 1 and abused him by taking out the name of his caste. Accused No. 1 pushed P.W. 4 into a gutter. P.W. 4 suffered injuries to his left hand and also on his right hand. P.W. 9 was declared as hostile witness. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W. 9 is entirely inconsistent with evidence of PW''s. 1 to 4.

P.W. 10 -Sheshaiah has deposed; that on the date of incident, when he was near the house of P.W. 1, accused No. 1 was demanding P.W. 1 to withdraw the compliant. P.W. 1 refused; therefore, accused No. 1 abused P.W. 1 by taking the name of his caste. When PWs.1 to 5 went to rescue P.W. 1, accused assaulted them and also abused them.

During cross-examination, P.W. 10 has deposed that when the incident took place 10 persons from the side of accused had come to the place of incident however, they did not take part in the quarrel. On the other hand, six persons were talking with the other villagers. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 10 is entirely different from the evidence of other witnesses.

The evidence given by the rest of the witnesses relates to registration and investigation of the case.

On re-appreciation of evidence, I find that there was no cordiality between P.W. 1-Subbaiah and son of elder sister of accused No. 1. The incident of quarrel has been distorted to lodge the above false complaint against accused. The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.