STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SEETHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State, Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 6, and Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.7/de facto complainant.

(2.) This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 18/11/2017 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2013 and prayed this Court to convict the accused.

(3.) The trial Judge while appreciating the material available on record came to the conclusion that though the injured took treatment in the Hospital, but the Doctor, who has been examined as PW15, did not treat the injured. The witnesses, who have been examined, are interested witnesses, i.e. they are the relatives of the complainant. Further, in paragraph No.27 of the judgment, the trial Judge has particularly mentioned about the property issue between the complainant and the accused, i.e. one Adinarayana Setty had agreed to sell the property to PW1 and he had executed Sale Agreement and handed over possession to her. However, Adinarayana Setty had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the accused by taking money from them. Even in her evidence, PW1 has specifically stated that all the accused armed with deadly weapons, attacked her and caused grievous injuries to her, and due to assault made by Seethappa, her right hand was cut. However, she has not specifically stated in her evidence as to who caused that particular injury to her. Even on perusal of the entire evidence of PW1, she has not specifically stated as to who assaulted to her right hand and with what weapon, which lead to amputation of right hand. It is also undisputed that there is a case and counter-case pertaining to the incident because it is alleged that on 15/5/2013 between 5.00 and 6.00 p.m., they assaulted Ademma and Padmavathi and also lit fire to the Tractor and that case is pending before the I Additional District Court. Further, the Doctor, who treated the injured, is not examined because one Dr. Madhu examined her on 15/5/2013 and found four injuries and he had written injury No.4 as amputation of hand. Further, the Doctor, who examined by the prosecution, has stated that particular hand portion was brought to the Hospital, but it was not united. Even he had stated that, the particular amputated hand was not reunited and they have not conducted surgery because it was not possible to do it as per the examination of Orthopedic Surgeon. Further, the husband of PW1 is not examined. According to PW1, her husband brought the cut portion of hand to the Hospital and other witnesses have turned hostile. PW7- Gangulamma, alleged eyewitness to the incident, has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Judge, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant has not stated properly as to which accused assaulted, in which weapon and her right hand was amputed, but she generally stated that the accused have assaulted which resulted in several injuries. This particular evidence is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case. When the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Doctor, who examined initially, is also not examined and the Doctor, who is examined by the prosecution, has not stated as to why that particular hand was not united. However, he has stated that there is a delay in bringing that particular amputated portion of the hand and he has not explained as to why the surgery was not conducted. Hence, the trial Judge, giving benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted them.