KATTEMANE GANESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.441/2015 is filed by the accused No.1 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 24/3/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.94/2002 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, convicting the him for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 506(ii), 341 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Criminal Appeal No.1055/2015 is filed by the injured victim-K.G.Prema/P.W.3 against the order of acquittal dtd. 24/3/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.81/2003 on the file of the very same Court i.e., Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, acquitting accused Nos.1 to 15 for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 324, 427, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 r/w Sec. 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act r/w Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.441/2015 and for the appellant/ victim in Criminal Appeal No.1055/2015 contended that, evidence of prosecution witnesses includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not considered and discussed the cross-examination portion of prosecution witnesses and thereby, the entire judgment passed in S.C.No.94/2002 is vitiated. He further contended that S.C.Nos.94/2002 and 81/2003 are case and counter cases. If judgment in one case is set-aside on the ground of non consideration of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the matter is remanded, the judgment in the other case also has to be set-aside and matter has to be remanded, since it is a case and counter case. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police vs.Hosakeri Ningappa and another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509.

(3.) Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contended that both the Sessions Cases were conducted by the same Sessions Judge, one after the other, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Hosakeri Ningappa's case, supra. However, while passing the judgment in S.C.No.94/2002, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that, if judgment in S.C.No.94/2002 is set-aside and remanded on the ground that the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses has not been considered, then, the judgment in S.C.No.81/2003 also has to be set-aside and the said matter also has to be remanded, since, they are case and counter cases.