State of Karnataka vs Champakavathi

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The State has challenged the order of acquittal of the Respondents for the charge under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code on a trial held by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City.

The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

On 04.03.2003, at about 11.30 a.m. at the Advocates Association Room of Criminal Court Complex, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore the Respondent is said to have quarreled with P.W.1 Munirathna in respect of the previous ill-will and wrongfully restrained her and caused assault with the Notary Name plate on the head, lips and breast of the complainant and has abused in filthy language. It is also stated that the accused dragged her by holding her hair and caused bodily pain. In the circumstances, P.W. 1 submitted a complaint before P.W. 3, which came to be registered in Crime No. 95/2003 for the offences aforesaid. The injured P.W. 1 was sent to Victoria Hospital for treatment. The investigating officer proceeded to the spot and the spot mahazar Ex.P2 was drawn and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. She arrested the accused (Respondent) on 06.08.2003 and released her on bail. She secured the MLC extract from Victoria Hospital and on completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid charges.

During the trial, Prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The statement of the Respondent was recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. She has taken the defence of total denial. She is examined as D.W.1. The Trial Court having heard both the parties and on perusing all the materials on record, acquitted the Respondent of the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed.

I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Appellant, the counsel for the Respondent is absent.

Insofar as the offence u/s 504 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, in the complaint Ex.P1. P.W.1 states that the Respondent, abused her in filthy language. Even in the evidence of P.W. 1 there is no specification of the words of abuse and in the circumstances, perusal of the complaint Ex.PI and the evidence of P.W. 1 does not reveal as to what sort of filthy language, was used by the Respondent. Though P.W.2 and P.W. 7 speak about the filthy words in their evidence, it is contrary to the evidence of P.W. 1 and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7. In these circumstances, I am to say that there is no material for the offence u/s 504.

Insofar as the evidence of P.W. 1 is concerned, in the complaint Ex. P1 it is stated that the Respondent; abused her in filthy language and by holding her hair dragged her and went away from the place. There are no allegations in the complaint about wrongful restraint. Even in the evidence also P.W.-1 does not say about the restraint caused by the Respondent at the time of the incident. So also the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 does not make any reference of wrongful restraint caused by the Respondent in the incident. Hence, there is no material even of the offence u/s 341 of Indian Penal Code.

Some of the witnesses stated that the Respondent took out the notary nameplate of P.W. 10 and caused assault on the head, neck and other portions of the body. P.W.2 states about having caused the assault with vanity bag, P.W. 7 speaks about the assault by use of the notary nameplate. So there is no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 about the manner of assault. P.W. 10 is the notary and during the course of investigation, the notary nameplate has not been seized by the investigating officer. So in such circumstances, it is difficult to accept the explanation of the witness so for as the assault is concerned. As could be seen from the MLC extract produced at Ex.P4, P.W.1 had sustained four injuries (I) tenderness on the occipital region; (ii) Swelling on the occipital region; (III) tenderness of the arm,; (iv) tenderness of the left cheek. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 7 that PW1 sustained bleeding injuries. But: as could be seen from the nature of the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4, none of the injuries mentioned therein are bleeding injuries. So, in the circumstances, it is rather difficult to accept the version about the assault having been caused with the notary nameplate.

This is an appeal against acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the orders of the acquittal. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the Trial Court cannot be disturbed. Taking into consideration this principle and the existing enmity between Petitioners and the Respondent, it is rather difficult to accept the inconsistent version of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 in the absence of any independent witnesses. Though in the evidence, it is stated that there were other persons present in addition to litigants also, the Investigating agency has not taken pains to examine the independent witnesses. P.Ws. 2 and 7 are the colleagues of P.W.1. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. In that view of the matter, as there is no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed.