State vs K.B. Guruswamy

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor. The State is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal in the following circumstances: It was the case of the prosecution that one Kotrappa, the Administrator, one G. Ramappa, the Assistant Recovery Officer and S. Shivalingegowda, Secretary attached to the Primary Co-operative and Rural Development Bank, Channapatna were assigned the duty of recovering dues from the farmers, who had availed loan facilities and had turned defaulters. Therefore, the above three persons along with other staff namely, a peon - PW.3, a Supervisor - CW.6, a Second Division Assistant CW.7 and another peon CW.8 had been to the Kannasandra village at about 2.30 p.m., and had approached the house of the accused and informed him that there was a decree against him for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- and further informed him that he was required to pay the amount or otherwise, coercive measures would be taken against him, at which, the accused is said to have resisted the demand and at that point of time, had raised a commotion, at which, other villagers had gathered in front of the house of the accused and the complainant and others were jostled, as a result of which, the complainant had fallen to the ground and lost a tooth and three other teeth got loosened. It is on the basis of this allegation of assault against the accused and others, that a case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 333 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the "IPC" for brevity) and proceedings having been taken further and the accused having stood trial, the court below has acquitted the accused on the glaring circumstance, whereby it is noticed that PW.1, the victim had not even mentioned in his complaint of having lost a tooth on suffering a fall on being jostled and that three other teeth got loosened and there was also a bleeding injury over the right eye. The court below has however found that the allegations were not substantiated by the material evidence, which was contrary to the allegations and according has acquitted the accused.

Though the learned State Public Prosecutor would make a serious effort to otherwise find fault with the reasoning of the court below, on a close examination of the record, it cannot be said that there is any error committed by the court below as the evidence of PW.1 does not support the case of the prosecution and since he was the victim, it was essential for the prosecution to have tendered consistent evidence in support of the allegations. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. The judgment impugned does not suffer from any irregularities.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.