SATHEESH, SON OF RUDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that one T.R.Krishna Murthy, Circle Inspector of Police, Tumkur Town Police, Tumkur, had lodged a complaint in writing before the Police Sub -Inspector, Tumkur Town Police Station, Tumkur, on 5.8.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., alleging that at 9.30p.m., on the same day, when the complainant was discharging his duties in his office, the present appellants, who were named as the accused, came to his office and abused him in foul language and caused obstruction in discharging his duties and he had specified the foul language used while also further alleging that the accused had caught hold of his collar and dragged him by his collar, as a result of which, his uniform was torn and that Prema Kumari, the third appellant herein, had also abused him and he had specified the language used by her. It was further alleged that the Police Sub -Inspector, one Umashankar and the Assistant Sub -Inspector and other staff members were present at the time of the incident.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants would point out that the very allegations of the accused, one of whom was a woman aged 52 and having no previous antecedents of unruly behaviour, having barged into a police station at 9.30p.m., and to have accosted and assaulted the complainant, in the presence of other policemen and staff members, is itself preposterous. First of all, it cannot be conceived that such an act could have been performed and secondly, the complainant having taken such conduct and behaviour, lying down, is also not conceivable. The complainant does not indicate that he had reacted or responded in any manner. This is unbecoming of a Police Officer and therefore unbelievable. The learned Counsel would submit that the very complaint is false and foisted, which on the face of it, is demonstrated by the circumstances that are alleged. The learned Counsel would point out with reference to the evidence that was tendered in support of the vague allegations, that though PW.1 had made several allegations in the examination -in -chief, in the course of his cross examination, he has admitted the material improvements, which were not to be found in the complaint lodged as per Exhibit P.1. Therefore, the evidence was certainly an exaggeration and it was not corroborated by other eyewitnesses.