PANCHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by three original convicted accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 namely, Panchaiah, Shankariah and Khan Sab. During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant (original accused No. 3) died. Therefore, we are concerned with the case of the remaining appellants. These appellants along with three others were tried for offences punishable under S. 324 and S. 304 read with S. 34 IPC for causing injuries to PW 5 and for causing the death of Devendrappa. The case mainly rested on the evidence of PW 5 and PW 8 out of whom PW 5 is the injured witness. The trial court however acquitted all the six. The State preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court while acquitting the three other accused A-2, A-4 and A-5 convicted the appellants under Ss. 302/34 IPC and 324 read with S. 34 IPC for causing death and injuries to PW 5 and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and simple imprisonment for six months respectively. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal under S.379 Cr. P.C. read with S.2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows. The accused, the material witnesses and the deceased belonged to Village Mylar in Bellary District, Karnataka. A-l to A-3 are brothers. They were living jointly. They were running a hotel at the bus stand. A-4 to A-6 are brothers. They had a sister by name Peeravva. The deceased was the husband of PW 11. PW 10 is the cousin brother of the deceased Devendrappa. The father of the deceased made a complaint two years prior to the present occurrence against the deceased (accused) and seven others for having outraged the modesty of Peeravva, sister of A-4 to A-6. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused but they were acquitted. As a result there was a bitter enmity between the two groups. Proceedings under S.110 Cr. P.C. were also registered against the deceased and the brothers of A-1 to A-3 made a complaint alleging theft of some articles against the deceased and in respect of the same, charge-sheet was also filed. While on 4-5-1979 namely, the date of occurrence Gurumujaiah the brother of A-1 to A-3 made a complaint against the deceased and six others under Ss. 147 and 436. At about 8.00 A. M. on 4-5-1979 the deceased along with PW 5 and PW 8 went to his land two miles away from the village to plough the land with a tractor. They ploughed the land till about 11.00 A.M. Therefore they went to a Neem tree and sat in the shade. They took their food. After the rest at about 12.30 or 1.00 P.M. PW 5 and PW 8 got up on hearing some noise. They saw A-1 to A-6 coming there. A-1 was armed with cycle chain and A-2 to A-6 were having clubs in their hands. Accused abused the deceased in vulgar language and thereupon A-1 assaulted the deceased (accused) on his head with cycle chain. The deceased got up and sat in a frightened mood. Thereafter PW 5 and PW 8 rescued the deceased. Accused threatened PW 8. Thereafter A-1 to A-6 assaulted the deceased with clubs and A-1 with a cycle chain on various parts of the body. The accused after inflicting these injuries left the scene of occurrence. PW 5 and PW 8 found the deceased lying injured and unconscious, lifted him to have village. The mother of the deceased and PW 10 were informed about the occurrence by PW 5. Thereafter PWs 5, 8 and 10 carried the deceased to the hospital in the tractor. PW 7, a Compounder at the Primary Health Centre, Holalu informed PW 5 and others that the doctor had gone to Bellary. Thereafter PW 5 and others searched for a private doctor at Holalu and they could not find him. PW 5 and others then proceeded to Hirehadagali. On the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries. PW 5 and others carried the body of the deceased to the police station at Hirehadgali and informed PW 19, the Sub-Inspector. Thereupon PW 19 asked PW 5 to give a written complaint. Accordingly PW 5 got a report of the occurrence written and presented the same to the Sub-Inspector, who registered the case. The next morning PW 5 was sent for medical examination and inquest was held over the dead body and post-mortem was conducted by doctor PW 6. He opined that the injuries to the head which caused internal damage, caused death as a result of shock due to haemorrhage. On PW 5 the doctor found simple injuries. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they were falsely implicated. The trial Court examined the evidence of PW 5 and PW 8 and pointed out that they have given an exaggerated version and that the medical evidence show that the occurrence could have taken place at a different time and it was not safe to rely on the evidence of Gurunanjaiah. In that view of the matter all the accused were acquitted. The High Court once again examined the evidence of these two eye-witnesses in great detail and was prepared to accept their evidence. So far as A-l, A-3 and A-6 are concerned since specific overt acts were attributed to them the High Court confirmed their acquittal.

(3.) Mr. Javali, the learned senior counsel submits that the evidence of these two witnesses had been discarded in respect of three accused. It would therefore be highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the same evidence. His further submission is that the fact that PW 5 was examined by the doctor at a belated stage makes his evidence suspicious. He also invited our attention to some of the admissions made by PW 5, the injured witness in his cross-examination where he has stated that all the accused beat the deceased indiscriminately and according to the learned counsel if that version is to be believed, there would have been number of injuries but the doctor found only six injuries on the deceased and out of them there were five abrasions. Therefore the evidence of PW 5 is contrary to the medical evidence. The learned counsel also pointed out that the occurrence took place at about 1.00 P.M. but the report was given at 7.00 P.M. and therefore the consultations and the resultant false implication cannot be ruled out in the case. In any event, according to the learned counsel the view taken by the trial court is quite reasonable and the High Court erred in interfering in an appeal against acquittal.