SHANKER SANGOLGI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 by assailing the judgment of conviction passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Bidar in S.C. No. 57/2009 dated 21.09.2010.

(2.) The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that Udhavrao was working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Beinchincholi. On 1.7.2008 when he was in the Gram Panchayat office and was discharging his official duties, at about 1.15 p.m., Shankar s/o Madhavrao Sangolgi ( accused No. 1 ) and Basappa s/o Shankreppa Hudgi ( accused No. 2 ) came to the Gram Panchayat office. Accused No. 1 asked the complainant to issue cheque pertaining to the house constructed by accused No. 2 under Ashraya Yojana. In reply, complainant told that he would issue the cheque only after taking the permission of the President of the Panchayat and ascertaining whether house has been really constructed or not? Furiously by the reply, accused No. 1 told at that time, that he was also Gram panchayat member. The complainant should obey what he would say or otherwise he would not leave him. By saying so, accused No. 1 fisted on the nose of the complainant and as a result of the same he sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter again he fisted below his both the eyes. Accused No. 2 abused the complainant in vulgar language and made the complainant to fall on the ground. When the complainant fell down, accused No.2 put his leg on the chest and kicked him. Accused No. 2 also gave a life threat to the complainant. At that time, one Basawaraj who was working as a Bill Collector and a panchayat member Vaijinath Dange, Baburao interfered and rescued the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the police station and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

(3.) After filing the charge sheet, the committal Court, by following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after taking the cognizance secured the accused, after hearing them about the charge, framed the charges. Since, accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, the trial was fixed.