State of Karnataka vs Ronald Lobo and Roshan Lobo

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the Judgment dated 10.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Crl. A. Nos. 150/2010 and 96/2011 wherein the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeals against the Judgment of conviction in CC Nos. 500/2009 and 966/2007 respectively convicting both appellants therein for offences punishable under sections 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment and fine by separate Judgments and Orders dated 19.6.2010 and 16.6.2011 respectively. From the records, it is seen that a counter case was registered against the complainant PW.1 and PW.4 in respect of the same incident which occurred at the same, place date and time. It is seen that the incident has taken place on 19.07.2007. The facts of the case are that PWs. 1 & 4 who are accused in CC No. 952/2007 had gone to the house of the accused on 19.07.2007 at about 9.30 pm and demanded to return the money of Rs. 60,000/- for which the accused refused to return the money and thereafter PWs.1 & 4 abused them in filthy language. It is further stated that immediately Accused No.1 picked up firewood/club and hit on the head of PW.1 due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. PW. 4 who is husband of PW.1 came to the rescue of PW.1 and at that time Accused No. 2 hit on the left eye and face of PW. 4 with a torch and pushed PWs.1 & 4 due to which PWs. 1 & 4 fell down. PWs.2 & 3 who are the witnesses to the incident came to the rescue of PWs.1 & 4 and thereafter Accused Nos. 1 & 2 went inside their house. PWs.2 & 3 took PWs.1 & 4 to Niduvale Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged by PW.1 at Balur Police Station.

Material placed before us further discloses that on the basis of the complaint of the accused, a counter case as CC No. 952/2007 was registered against PWs.1 & 4 in respect of the said incident. The Joint Director of Prosecution has appointed a Special Additional Public Prosecutor as Public Prosecutor in CC No. 966/2007 since the regular Additional Public Prosecutor was representing the prosecution in CC No. 952/2007. Both the aforesaid learned Assistant and Additional Assistant Public Prosecutors did not bring to the notice of the court about the pendency of counter case and the case in CC No. 952/2007 has been disposed of while CC No. 966/2007 was pending.

The learned Magistrate further proceeded to hear this matter and in the meantime since Accused No. 2 was absconding, a separate CC No. 500/2009 was registered against him. Original CC No. 966/2007 ended in order of conviction dated 19.6.2010 convicting Accused No. 1 for the offences mentioned above whereas split up CC No. 500/2009 was disposed of on 16.6.2011 by convicting Accused No. 2 of the same offence.

Both the accused have preferred separate criminal appeals before the Sessions Court numbering Criminal Appeal Nos. 150/2010 and 96/2011. Since both the matters arise out of the same incident, the learned Sessions Judge took up the matter together and by common Judgment dated 10.11.2011 allowed the appeals filed by the accused and ordered acquittal of both the accused.

Heard Sri. H S Chandramouli, learned State Public Prosecutor regarding admission of the appeal and also on the delay of 28 days caused in filing the appeal.

Insofar as delay is concerned, we are satisfied that the prosecution has explained the delay in filing the appeal and accordingly IA No. 1/2012 is allowed. Delay is condoned. Notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on the basis of the non explanation of the injuries found on the person of the accused since the counter case was not available for the learned trial court to appreciate the evidence on record, as per the decision in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others, Both cases ought to have been tried simultaneously before the same Judge and that having not done so, the learned Magistrate did not have the opportunity of looking at the injuries sustained by the accused which is the subject matter of counter case.

We are of the considered opinion that having regard to the fact that incident has occurred due to demand of money by PWs. 1 & 4 by going to the house of the accused and such altercation having taken place in the house of the accused and further that since learned Additional Public Prosecutor before the trial court did not bring to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the counter case is pending, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore we dismiss this appeal in the admission stage itself. In view of the fact that the accused have been acquitted, fine amount deposited by them is directed to be refunded to them.