AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The respondents (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1 to 7) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) & (xi) of ST/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Special Judge has acquitted them of aforestated offences. Therefore, the State is before this court. I have heard the learned Government Advocate for the State. The learned counsel for accused is absent.
The accused were tried for the following charges:
That on 30.03.2007 at about 7:00 p.m. near the tamarind tree at Sonnapura Village, Chickaballapur Taluk you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to assault C.Ws. 1 & 2 viz., Munivenkatarayappa and Devaraju and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 143 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., to assault C.Ws. 1 & 2, committed the offence of rioting, and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 147 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., to assault C.Ws. 1 & 2, commit the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with a deadly weapon to wit clubs, choppers, cycle chains and stones and stones and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 148 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object, wrongfully restrained C.Ws. 1 & 2 from moving further and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 341 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Fifthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object, you A2 voluntarily caused simple hurt by assaulting C.W. 2 with chopper on his chin, you A1 assaulted him with cycle chain on his left side of arm you A1 voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W. 1 by assaulting him with cycle chain on his back and left thigh, you A5 voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W. 3-Narayanamma by assaulting her with club on her forehead and also assaulted to C.W. 6-Gangappa on his right thigh, knee role, you A3 and A6 voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W. 4-Parvathamma by assaulting her with clubs on her left thigh, you A2 voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W. 5-Munirathnamma by assaulting her with chopper on her right hand finger, you A7 assaulted her with stone, you A4 and A7 voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W. 7-Murthy by assaulting him with stone on his left leg and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 324 read with Sec. 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Seventhly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST community, were a member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object, you A2, A3, A5 and A6 assaulted C.Ws. 3 to 5 women belong to scheduled caste with intent to dishonour their modesty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and within my cognizance.
Lastly, on the aforesaid date, time and place you all the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST community, were a member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object, intentionally insulted, humiliated and abused C.Ws. 1 & 2 who belong to scheduled caste community in filthy language touching their caste as within the public view, knowing fully well that they belong to scheduled caste and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and within my cognizance.
As per the case of prosecution, P.W''s. 1 to 7 are injured witnesses. P.W''s. 8 and 9 are stated to be immediate post-occurrence witnesses; the evidence of P.W. 10 relates to registration of crime and spot inspection. P.W. 11-Dr. N.K. Lakshmi has given evidence in proof of injuries suffered by P.W''s. 1 to 7.
It is not in dispute that there was enmity between the prosecution witnesses, in particular, P.W''s. 1 to 7 on one side and the accused on the other side.
P.W. 1-Munivenkatarayappa has deposed; that on the date of incident at about 7.00 p.m., P.W. 1 was proceeding on a motorcycle from Chikkaballapur to his village; he reached his village at about 7.00 p.m.; when he was entering his village, accused No. 1 and 2 assaulted P.W. 2 who was proceeding on a motorcycle ahead of P.W. 1; when P.W. 1 tried to rescue P.W. 2, accused No. 1 assaulted on the left limb of P.W. 1 with a club and accused No. 2 assaulted on the back of P.W. 1 with a cycle chain.
At this stage, it is relevant to notice that P.W. 1 has not referred to the presence of accused No. 3 to 7.
During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that by the time he reached the place of incident, P.W. 2 had suffered injuries and he had fallen down and the witnesses namely Muni Narasimhaiah, Devaraju, Murthy, Muni Narayanappa and Narayanappa had gathered there. The incident had taken place under the cover of darkness beneath a tamarind tree.
Thus, we find the evidence of P.W. 1 is self-contradictory. In the examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 has deposed as if he had witnessed the incident of assault on P.W. 2. P.W. 1 has deposed that he intervened to save P.W. 2 and he was assaulted by the accused.
During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has deposed; by the time he reached the place of incident, P.W. 2 had already been assaulted and he had fallen down. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 is hardly sufficient to prove that he was assaulted by the accused.
The evidence of P.W. 2-Devaraja is in no way better than the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 has deposed; when he reached the place of incident (near tamarind tree) about 10-15 persons had gathered there; he received two blows; as it was dark, he was not able to identify the assailants. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 2 is hardly sufficient to prove the charges against the accused.
The other witnesses namely P.W''s. 3 to 7 have not supported the case of prosecution Their evidence is vague.
P.W. 3-Narayanamma has deposed; when she reached the place of incident, some persons pelted stones; accused No. 5 assaulted on the head of P.W. 3 with a club.
When P.W. 3 was examined in General Hospital at Chikkaballapur, she has deposed that she was assaulted by an iron rod by accused No. 1-Nagesha.
During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted that soon after she reached the place of incident, a blow was dealt on her head and she became unconscious. In the circumstances, evidence of P.W. 5 that she was assaulted by accused No. 5 does not inspire confidence.
P.W. 4-Parvathamma has deposed; that accused No. 6 and 7 assaulted her with clubs. As per the wound certificate (marked as Ex. P19), P.W. 4 had suffered abrasion on the left fore arm. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 4 that accused No. 6 and 7 assaulted on her chest with a club and accused No. 7 assaulted on her left knee joint with a club cannot be accepted.
The evidence of P.W. 5-Munirathnamma is rather omnibus. P.W. 5 has deposed; that accused No. 2 assaulted her with a chopper. When P.W. 5 was examined by the Doctor in General Hospital at Chikkaballapur, she has deposed that she was assaulted by accused No. 1. P.W. 5 was declared as hostile witness.
During cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, she has admitted that when she reached the place of incident, she was assaulted however, she was not able to identify the assailants. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 5 is hardly sufficient to hold the accused guilty of offences alleged against them.
P.W. 6-Gangappa has deposed; after he reached the place of incident, some persons assaulted him; he became unconscious, therefore, he was not able to identify the assailants.
P.W. 7-Murthy has deposed; that accused No. 4 and 7 assaulted him with clubs. The wound certificate (marked as Ex. P22) of P.W. 7 would reveal that, before the Doctor he has stated that he was assaulted by accused No. 1-Nagesha. The wound certificate would reveal that he had suffered abrasion on the left side. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 7 that he was assaulted on his right thigh by accused No. 4 and 7 cannot be accepted.
P.W. 8-Dyavappa is a post-occurrence witness. P.W. 8 has deposed; that he heard noise of quarrel near the place of incident; by the time he reached the place of incident, P.W''s. 1 and 2 had suffered injuries; he had not witnessed the incident of assault.
The evidence of P.W. 9-Munikrishnappa is more or less similar to evidence of P.W. 8.
The evidence of P.W. 10-Chandramohan Singh relates to registration of a case.
P.W. 11-Dr. N.K. Lakshmi had examined the injured and she had given the wound certificates.
In the discussion made supra, I have referred to the injuries suffered by some of the prosecution witnesses and I have also assigned reasons for disbelieving their evidence. The evidence of the aforestated witnesses does not reveal that their caste had any nexus with the alleged incident of assault.
The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held that evidence adduced by the prosecution is highly discrepant and evidence adduced by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to prove the offences alleged against the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.