SHIVANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the complainantappellant as well as the State against the common judgement dated 21.07.2014 in Sessions Case No.51/2003 by the Hon ble Fast Track Addl. M.A.C.T, Dharwad (for short, the Sessions Court ). The Sessions Court has acquitted the accused - respondents of the Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 109 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution s case could be summarized as follows. On 19.04.2002, in a pending dispute between the management of Samyukta Karnataka and its employee (a workman) before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hubli, the accused No.1 (an office-bearer and member of a Labour Union), assisted by the accused No.2 (another office-bearer and member of a Labour Union) was crossexamining PW3, the Manager on the rolls of the management of Samyukta Karnataka . The complainant [PW1] was on record for the management as an Advocate. In the course of such cross- examination, the complainant [PW.1] objected to the accused No.1 putting certain questions to PW3 as being irrelevant. The accused No.1 being irked by such objections, shouted at him saying, you non-sense, get out . The complainant [PW1] requested the Presiding Officer to take suitable action against the accused No.1 for his reactions. The accused No.2, who was sitting amongst the litigants, threw a plastic chair at the PW1 and assaulted him on his chest and shoulder. The accused No.1 was instigating the accused No.2 saying that the complainant [PW1] should not be spared and he must be taught a lesson. The accused No.2 so instigated by the accused No.1 tried to strangulate the complainant [PW1] intending to kill him. The Presiding Officer [PW9], the staff of the office, other advocates and litigants in the Court Hall intervened and pulled the accused No. 2 away from the complainant [PW1]. But, for the intervention as aforesaid, the accused No.2 would have strangulated the complainant [PW1), killing him.

(3.) The defense of the accused, as can be discerned from the cross-examination of different witnesses, including the complainant [PW1] and the presiding Officer [PW9], is that the accused are widely recognized officebearers of different labour organizations/unions, and the complaint is lodged because of grouse harboured against them by the complainant and the others. It is suggested to these witnesses that the accused represents different workmen who had initiated different proceedings against organizations like Samyukta Karnataka and other establishments and the complainant [PW1] and his Senior [PW5] were on record as advocate for these organizations and hence there was ill-will against the accused. It is also suggested to PW3, a witness examined on behalf of the management of Samyukta Karnataka , that there was connivance to launch false proceedings against the accused.