STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DODDA HANUMANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Karnataka has assailed the order of acquittal recorded in favour of 8 accused in S. C. No. 26/90 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur on 18-9-1992 through the present appeal.

(2.) THE allegation against the accused was that on the morning of 13-10-1989 at about 8 A. M. in Sy. No. 248 at Village Vaddepalli, that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and that they had caused the death of one Rangappa. The accused were charged with having committed offences punishable u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 506 and 302 r/w 149, I. P. C. The ancillary charge was that in the cause of this incident the accused had assaulted P. Ws. 1 to 3 and caused certain injuries to them. The learned trial Judge after a detail analysis of the evidence, acquitted all the eight accused, principally on the ground that it was not possible to hold that the charges were established because of the various infirmities in the evidence, but the principal ground was that the material before the Court disclosed that the incident had taken place in the land belonging to the accused and that it was extremely difficult to conclude as to which of the parties was the aggressor principally because two of the accused had sustained injuries, one of them of considerable seriousness. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order.

(3.) THE learned Addl. S. P. P. took us through the record of the case which is rather voluminous and his principal submission was that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 does in fact make out a conclusive case against the accused. He sought to draw support from the medical evidence and the other supportive evidence on record and he contended that the learned trial Judge has adopted an ultra strict approach while assessing the evidence and has also discredited it by comparing one head of evidence with another. His submission was that inconsistencies that have been noted in the findings are inevitable because this was an incident in which several persons have taken part on both sides and he contended that having regard to the fact that the witnesses were all villagers that minor blemishes in the evidence were to be expected. He sought to place heavy reliance on the well settled principle of law that even in cases of this type the Court must separate the grain from the chaff and he submitted that it was perfectly permissible to do this and to still hold that the charges were conclusively established. On the other hand, respondents' learned advocate pointed out to us that we have in this instance a very well considered judgment of the trial Court wherein the learned Judge has carefully analysed every head of evidence and he submitted that it is now well settled law that merely because another view may be possible, that a Court would not interfere with the earlier decision unless it is demonstrated that it is manifestly wrong or that it is perverse or that it has resulted in a total failure of justice. On the basis of these propositions, respondents' learned advocate pointed out to us that we have in this case a situation where a small incident had occurred on the evening of 12-10-1989 when the cattle belonging to the other side strayed into the fields of the accused pursuant to which some hostility developed between the parties and it was a fall out of this incident that provoke the deceased and his brothers to go to the fields belonging to the accused on the morning of 13-10-1989. His principal submission is that it was very clear that the deceased and his brothers had come to settle the dispute and that they were the aggressors and he relied on the observations of the learned trial Judge that even though the plea of self-defence has not been specifically pleaded in this case that the defence would be available and that the Court must take into account in such a situation the fact that the accused had acted in exercise of their right of self-defence. Heavy reliance was sought to be placed on the fact that the injuries of some seriousness have been caused to two of the accused and that the prosecution has not explained these injuries. In totality, the submission was that even if the evidence of some P. Ws. inspire some confidence that this is not a case in which the accused could be convicted because there were serious lacunae in the prosecution evidence. We need to point out here that the learned Addl. S. P. P. advanced the submission that where the evidence indicated that there was an assault and a counter-assault, as is evident from the fact that A-2 had lodged a complaint in respect of the assault on his party, that it is unnecessary for the prosecution to separately tender any explanation for the injuries. He did not dispute the fact that where the injuries of some seriousness have occurred to the accused that it is incumbent for the prosecution to be able to reconcile these with the incident, but his submission was that the present record is self-explanatory. It is difficult for us to accept this submission though it is a very inonnious one, because the law casts a specific obligation on the prosecution to explain the injuries and it is, therefore, not a matter of inference. We do not need to recount the various decisions of the Supreme Court and also of this Court wherein the principle has been well crystallised, that such an explanation must be forthcoming as otherwise, it gives rise to serious doubts in the mind of the Court. Therefore, to seek to get over this difficulty by stating that the record is self-explanatory would not be enough for the simple reason that in the absence of an explanation it would be hazardous to venture a finding on the part of the question as to which of the parties was the aggressor. The Courts have invariably taken the view that an infirmity of this type is very basic and that it could, on occasions, lead to fatal conclusions for the prosecution. We shall proceed to consider the merits of this appeal in the light of this situation.