T M AMARNATHA ALIAS AMARANARAYANA Vs. MALLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2010 of the Fast Track Court-I. Kolar, allowing R.A.No.70/2008 and dismissing O.S.No.23/2006 by reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2008 decreeing the suit partly by directing defendants No.2 to 9 jointly and severally to pay Rs.48,000/- towards compensation to the plaintiff. The appellant instituted the suit arraigning the respondents as defendants "for compensation" of Rs.75,000/- for malicious prosecution, alleging that the 1st defendant lodged a complaint with Masthi Police Station on 3.5.1998 at 7.30 p.m. alleging that one Srinivas S/o Narasimhappa, Balajiga had committed the murder of one Venkateshappa S/o Muniramaiah of Thorahalli, Malur Taluk, in the land bearing Sy.No.96/2, without mentioning the name of the plaintiff, which was registered in Crime No.78/1998. During investigation, it is alleged that defendant No.1 made a re-statement before the jurisdictional Police that the plaintiff/accused No.4 and two others abetted the murder of Venkateshappa, the basis for prosecuting the plaintiff, by a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC, in CC.No.323/1998, before the JMFC, Malur Taluk, although the plaintiff was in no way connected with the offence and there was no enmity between the family of the victim Venkateshappa and that of the plaintiff. It is further asserted that the case when committed before the Sessions Judge at Kolar, the plaintiff was enlarged on bail and the proceeding registered as S.C.No. 174/1998 before the II Additional Sessions Judge at Kolar and thereafter, transferred to the Fast Track Court-I, Kolar. It is the further allegation of the plaintiff that due to the false statement and complaint lodged by the defendants, the plaintiff and family members underwent irreparable loss, mental agony and hardship, affecting their name, fame and reputation. According to the plaintiff, by judgment dated 12.9.2005, the Fast Track Court-I, acquitted the plaintiff, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was involved in the crime that occurred on 3.5.1998 at 9 a.m. at Thorahalli. Hence, the suit to compensate the plaintiff for:

(2.) The suit was resisted by filing written statement of the defendants stating that the statements before the Police Authorities were true and correct, while denying the other allegation. In addition, it was stated that the 1st defendant was the complainant in S.C.No.174/1998. defendant No. 2 is the widow of deceased Venkateshappa, while defendant No.3 is his son and defendants No.4 to 9 are complainant witnesses.

(3.) After conclusion of trial, the trial Court recorded a finding that the re-statement of defendant No.1 does not indicate any allegation against the plaintiff of having abetted accused No. 1 to commit the murder of Venkateshappa, while defendants No. 2 to 9 in their re-statement did speak of plaintiff having instigated accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the murder of the deceased about six months prior to the murder. Therefore the trial court jumped to a conclusion that a false statement was made before the Police, by reason of which, the plaintiff was implicated and hence a presumption that it was natural for anybody accused of murder or instigating murder to lose fame, reputation and also financially, more so, in the case of a rustic Indian Village though plaintiff was not shown to have a bad reputation. In the circumstances the trial court concluded that Rs.48.000/- towards litigation expenses, transport expenses, loss of earnings etc., would be reasonably expended by the plaintiff and accordingly, by the judgment and decree directed payment of compensation.