State of Karnataka vs Irappa

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—Heard. Admit.

Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No. 122/209 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

The respondents are tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 and 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.08.2008 at about 10 a.m., near the land bearing Sy.No. 276/2B situated on Veerabhadreshwar temple road, Maradagi village, all the accused came forming themselves into an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons such as axe, sickle and club; at that point of time, the complainant and others had started cultivating the land; all the accused committed the offence of rioting and thereafter assaulted PWs-1, 2 and 3; the injured had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries; the First Information Report came to lodged by PW-1 Rudrappa Shivappa Tegginamani as per Ex. P.1 on 28.08.2008 before the Sub-Inspector of Rural Police Station, Dharwad and charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 504, 506 and 114 r/w Section 149 IPC.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses, got marked 37 exhibits and 16 material objects. On behalf of the defence, one witness is examined as DW-1 (accused No. 2). On behalf the defence, 17 documents were got marked.

The trial court on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing the advocates on both the sides, acquitted accused by granting benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.

Mr. K.S. Patil, learned Government Pleader and Sri V.G. Bhat, advocate for the respondents have taken us through the material on record including the lower court records. They argued in support of their respective cases.

Looking to the material on record, it is clear that there were civil disputes between the parties in respect of the land in question which was being cultivated by the injured during the relevant period. Accused Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 9 and others had filed O.S. No. 649/2008 and whereas the first informant Rudrappa had filed O.S. No. 591/2008 for certain reliefs. The suit filed by the complainant came to be dismissed whereas the suit filed by the accused came to be decreed and consequently the complainant Rudrappa and others were restrained permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the accused over the property in question. There is nothing on record to show that the said judgment of the trial court passed in O.S. No. 649/2008 is reversed by the appellate court. Therefore, it is clear that the accused were in possession of the property and that the complainant and his group were restrained permanently from interfering with the possession of the accused. Despite the same, it seems the complainant and others went to the land for tilling the land and the same was objected to by the accused.

In that regard, a quarrel has taken place between the two groups in which the accused party as well as the complainant''s party sustained certain injuries.

The injuries sustained by the accused in the very incident as mentioned supra are not explained by the prosecution. It is incumbent on the prosecution to explain the injuries suffered by the accused also. The Investigation Officer should come before the Court with clean hands by explaining all the circumstances in favour of and against the prosecution. In the matter on hand, the trial court has rightly found that the prosecution has let in one sided story before the Court, which ultimately has resulted in acquittal of the accused.

PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that as on the date of the incident, the second accused Gurushantappa (DW-1) was managing the land bearing Sy. No. 276/2B. He had raised a crop loan and he has discharged the same. It is also admitted by PW-1 that DW-1 continued in possession of the land even subsequent to the death of Shivavva, the propositus. This probabilises the defence''s version that the accused were in fact cultivating the land and at that point of time, the injured came to the spot and started quarrelling with the accused. Prima facie, it appears that the injured are the aggressors.

Be that as it may. This criminal case is an outcome of civil dispute between the parties. The trial court in its judgment (paragraph 10) has explained the contradictions and omissions appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. On going through the material on record, we find that the prosecution has not come out with true story before the court. The origin and genesis of the case of the prosecution is suppressed. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.

Since this is an appeal arising out of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and as we find that the view taken by the trial court while acquitting the accused is one of the two possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference need be made, particularly, when the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.