M.A. KRISHNAIAH S/O ANNAPPA, RETIRED TEACHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 18/2000 on the file of the Fast Track Court - II, Chikmagalur, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2007, wherein the learned Fast Track Judge has convicted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, and after hearing the appellant herein, has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and has further sentenced the accused - appellant herein to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., till his death as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. It is further ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs. 2,10,000/ -, Rs. 2,00,000/ - shall be paid to the victim (PW.1) as compensation.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows: The appellant herein was working as Head Master in Government Higher Primary School at Magadi, Chikmagalur, during 1999. PW.1 - Vasanthakumari (complainant) was working as Teacher in the said school. PW.2 - Swarnagowri and PW.3 - Vasanthakumari are working as Teachers in the said school. On 02.03.1999 at about 5:30 p.m., PW.1 - D. Vasanthakumari filed complaint before PW.8 - Palakshappa, who was working as Head Constable in Police Station, Chikmagalur. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant (PW.3) was working as Teacher in Government Higher Primary School, Magadi since two years. The accused was working Head Master in the said School. The accused was abusing the complainant regarding conducting of classes by her and the question papers prepared by her. On 23.02.1999 at about 3:45 p.m., while she was in the office room and was preparing to go to the class room for taking classes, the accused came there and asked her as to why she was there in the office room and abused her and threw acid on her. She sustained injury to her right shoulder and on hearing her cry, PW.2 - Swarnagowri and PW.3 -Vasantha Kumari, who were working as Teachers came there and at that time, the accused threatened her saying that she had survived on the said day and if she were to disclose about the said incident, he would kill her. PWs.2 and 3 took her to Joldal Nursing Home at Chikmagalur for treatment. Since she had sustained injury, she could not talk or write and therefore, there is delay in filing the complaint. The above said complaint was registered in Crime No. 56/1999 in Rural Police Station, Chikmagalur. PW.8 - Palakshappa prepared the FIR and submitted the same to the Court. On 03.03.1999, he conducted the spot panchanama as shown by the complainant in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. The Complainant showed the bottle which was kept on the cupboard as the one which was used for the commission of offence and he seized the same as per Ex. P2 and he has identified his signature as Ex.P2(c). He has identified M.O. No. 1 as the bottle, which was seized under the mahazar -Ex.P2.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and DWs.1 to 4 ad the contents of the documents Exs.P1 to P7 (a) and Exs.D1 to D23 and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, and ultimately; no sentence could be imposed upon the appellant and the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court impugned in the appeal is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offences, for which he is charged. Learned Counsel further submitted that according to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 23.02.1999 at about 3:45 p.m. and when the complainant was taken to the hospital on the said day, she has herself given the history, regarding the injury sustained by her before the Medical officer - PW.5 as burn sustained by accidental fall of the bottle containing acid and no complaint was filed against the appellant. The complainant, only as an afterthought and after discussion with her family members, has foisted a false complaint against the appellant and the said complaint was filed before PW.8 - Palakshappa only on 02.03.1999. However, the complainant has given her further statement on 14.03.1999 before PW.9 - T. Nagesh Shetty. Evidence of PW.5 - Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda would clearly show that at the earliest point of time when the complainant was admitted to the hospital, complainant (PW.1) has given the history of injury as burn injury due to fall of acid bottle from the cupboard and she was herself responsible for the same and she should be given treatment. The said witness (PW.5) has not been treated as hostile. Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 is also not helpful in proving the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel has taken us through the contents of Exs.D5, D6, D22 and D23, the statements given by the complainant and the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer arid further submitted that the evidence of DWs.1 to 4 and the documents marked by them would clearly show that even before the Enquiry Officer, the complainant - PW.1 has stated that she has sustained burn injury due to fall of acid bottle from the cupboard. The report of the DDPI., and the evidence of DWs.1 and 4 would clearly show that the complainant at the earliest point of time, has stated before them that she sustained injury due to fall of acid bottle from the cupboard and no incriminating material was found against the appellant -accused at the earliest point of time and therefore, a false complaint has been foisted against him. Learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in the proper perspective and the above said material on record would clearly show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the Quilt of the appellant of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 IPC. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted and accordingly, the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court impugned in this appeal may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 IPC. Learned Counsel further submitted that even If this Court holds that the prosecution has proved that the appellant - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is disproportionate to the proved charges against him and the appellant is in custody since the date of the judgement i.e., 27.02.2007 and wherefore, sentence imposed upon him may be reduced.