State of Karnataka vs Dharmappa Bdddikayee

Anand Byrareddy

Heard the learned Government Advocate. The facts of the case briefly stated are:

That it was alleged.11:tat on 6.1-12004 at about 8 p.m. at Managundi village near a bus stop, the accused had voluntarily picked up a quarrel with the- complainant on the ground that the complainant- should ''fiet. Cross. the path Way of the accused as it was situated. in their land, and assaulted the complainant with a stone and caused in. abusing him n filthy language. it was oft...that basis, that a complaint was lodged with the 01-formiar. Rural Police and a case was registered in Crime No. 22.0/20011 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet had been tiled before the Court.

The accused canvassed a plea of not guilty to the charges and after trial, the Court framed following points for its determination:

Whether the prosecution beyond all ilsonable doubt proves that on 6.12.2004-at 0-00 howaL Managundi Village.. near stop- accused voluntarily picked up (_juLin-L1 with thc complainant for the reason thA, the colnotrainant used to cross the pathway of the accused situ,tted in the land of accused and assaulted the complainant by means of stone and caused injuries to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC?

Whether the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place for the above said reason, accused intentionally insulted the complainant by abusing filthy language and gave provocation knowing it to.he that the said provocation would cause the complainant to break the public peace and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 504 IPC?

What order or sentence?

It is found by the trial Court that PW.1-the Complainant was examined. The other witnesses cited in. support of the prosecution case, viz., P.Ws.5, 7, 8.:rid 9;..ar said to have intervened in the quarrel between the cornolainant... and the accused and tried to pacify them, did not support the case of the complainant and they had turned hostile.. PWs.4, 7, 8 and 9 stated that they did not know anything about the incident and they also denied having given any statement to the police. P.W.5 hdd Jso deposed that he had visited the spot and he did not know whethi?...r the corriPlainant was assaulted and abused by the accused. It is in this background, that all the witnesses, viz. PWs.5, 7, 8 and 9 as well as PW.4 were treated as hostile ivitnesses and the Court has held that the prosecution. has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, Exhibit P.2 which was the spot panchanama has lost. its credibility and evidentiary value and it is by a brief judgment the trial Court has held that from the above reasoning and discussions, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

The appeal is filed on several ground the glaring circumstances as pointed by the trial Court,. iris. apparent that the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 could not Learning home the offence alleged against_ the accused aixi the before,, there is no infirmity in judge merit at the trial Court. The learned Government Advocate, however, would make a weak effort to sustain: the :rounds urged in. the appeal, which is futile. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.