LAWS(KAR)-2019-7-431

GANAPATI NARAYANA KOMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 11, 2019
Ganapati Narayana Komar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the victim the complainant questioning the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Sirsi in S.C.No.49/2011, wherein the accused came to be acquitted for the of fences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

(2.) Brieffacts for the purpose of this appeal is that, according to the prosecution there was a dispute with regard to the pathway which the accused had asked the victim, the husband of the complainant namely Ganapati Narayan Komar. The injured had refused to give any space in his land. Therefore in that ill-will or enmity, this incident is alleged to have been taken place. According to the complainant on 15.01.2011 at about 8.15 a.m., when the injured Ganapati was proceeding to his garden land on a footpath, the accused came there and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with kuthari (spade - agricultural instrument) on his head and caused grievous injuries to him with an intention to kill him. After the assault, the witnesses on hearing the hue and cry came there and the injured was shifted to hospital. He was said to be inpatient for many days. In the meanwhile wife of the injured namely PW.1 filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.1. A crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. After collecting evidence, the Investigating Officer found that accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC. Hence, charge sheet came to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the aforesaid of fences and the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence under Section 307 of IPC was triable only by Sessions Judge.

(3.) After committal, the learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused. On hearing, charge was framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was conducted.