SHIVAKUMARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 05.06.2007 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District; Bangalore in S.C.No.120/2004 is the subject matter of these two appeals. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/ - to PW2. By the very judgment, all other accused are acquitted of all the offences, with which they were charged. Crl.A.No.1195/2011 is filed by the accused No.1 questioning the judgment and order of his conviction under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Crl.A.No.1359/2007 is filed by the State questioning the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that PW3 - Usha is the foster sister of accused No.1 and PW4; accused No.1 and PW4 are genitive brothers; the parents of accused No.1 and PW4 had fostered PW3 - Usha during her childhood; after the death of the parents of accused No.1 and PW4, Kum.Usha was looked after as their real sister by accused No.1 and PW4; when Usha became major and attained the age of marriage, PW2 -the police constable and his family members proposed PW2 to Usha; accused No.1 was not willing for the proposal inasmuch as he was of the opinion that PW2 and his family members are not well cultured and they are not so befitting to the status of accused No.1; however, due to the intervention of the third parties and the intervention of PW4, marriage of PW3 -Usha was performed with PW2 in a Kalyana Mantap; all the expenses were borne by accused No.1; PW4 also helped for the said marriage; however, there was difference of opinion between accused No.1 and PW4 i.e., the brothers inter se; accused No.1 used to pressurize PWs 2 and 3 not to visit the house of PW4; despite the same, PWs 2 and 3 used to visit the house of PW4; the said act enraged accused No.1. With the said background, all the accused came in a car and collided with the two -wheeler of PW2 who was travelling with PW3 from Bhattarahalli (Nelamangala Taluk) towards Bangalore; thereafter, all the accused assaulted PWs 2 and 3, consequent upon which PW2 sustained three injuries and PW3 sustained one injury. Exs.P1 and P2 are wound certificates of PWs 2 and 3 respectively. They were treated on the date of the incident itself by PW1 -the Doctor; though PWs 2 and 3 ventured to lodge first information in Nelamangala Police Station, the police of the Nelamangala Police Station did not receive the information inasmuch as accused No.1 was allegedly known to the Deputy Superintendent of Police by name Kotrabasappa; ultimately, PW2 was able to lodge the first information before the police by virtue of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.26269 -26287/2003, a copy of the same is marked as Ex.D3; the first information, thus, was lodged on 04.07.2003 by PW2 as per Ex.P3 before the Sub -Inspector of Police, Nelamangala who issued first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P7; PW6 laid the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 6 witnesses and got marked 9 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, accused No.1 himself is examined as DW1 and got marked 3 exhibits.