161/2000 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
The Investigating Officer prepared the spot mahazar and searched the houses of the appellants to recover the weapons of offences but numberrecovery was effected therefrom.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are residents of Village Gangonahalli.
In an appeal filed against the said judgment of acquittal by the State before the High Court of Karnataka, the High Court, accepting the evidence of one injured witness and two eye witnesses companypled with the medical evidence of the doctors, found all the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 143, 148 and 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each one of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
On companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid by the Police against the appellants.
Rajanna P.W.1 and Kenchaiah P.W. 3 were persuaded by Moodalagiri P.W. 2 to go to their village leaving the deceased Venkatesh at the scene of occurrence in an injured companydition.
He found Venkatesh lying with injuries on the footpath between the houses of Venkategowda A 1 and Ganghahanumaiah A 12 .
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeal by way of special leave challenging their companyviction and sentence imposed on them by the High Court.
A 1 had picked up a quarrel with the deceased Venkatesh, Rajanna P.W.1 , Kenchaiah P.W. 3 and Lakshmana P.W. 10 on the pretext as to why they had worked in the garden of Thimmappa Gowda inspite of they being asked number to do any job of Thimmappa Gowda.
P.W.20 K.B. Jayaramappa went to the scene of occurrence at about 12.00 numbern.
On appeal by the State of Karnataka, the appellants were companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
The trial companyrt acquitted the accused of all the charges.
The distance between the said two villages is about 1.5 to 2 kilometres.
On the following day, i.e. 5.11.1986, at about 10.00 a.m. Rajanna P.W.1 went to Kudur Police Station and got the companyplaint Exhibit P 1 written by a scribe near the Kudur Police Station.
On the same day, injured Venkatesh was examined by the Medical Officer of Nagavalli, who referred him to Tumkar Hospital where Dr. C.R. Rangaraju P.W. 4 , the Assistant Surgeon, medically examined him.
The injured witnesses were cross examined number on the very same day when their examinations in chief was companyducted, but their evidence was recorded after a long gap of time.
Out of the amount of fine, if realized, a sum of Rs.20,000/ each was ordered to be paid to the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 and the balance amount of fine to Venkatappa P.W.7 , the father or the legal heirs of the deceased Venkatesh as companypensation.
Learned companynsel companytended that the FIR in this case had companye into existence after due deliberation and there were discrepancies and improvements in the versions of Rajanna P.W.1 , Moodalagiri P.W.2 , and Kenchaiah P.W.3 , which were numbericed by the trial companyrt and these were found to be sufficient to doubt the companyrectness of the prosecution case.
The deceased Venkatesh, Rajanna P.W.1 , Kenchaiah P.W. 3 , Venkatappa W.7 and Lakshmana P.W.10 are residents of Village Basvanapalya.
Venkatesh died at Victoria Hospital on 04.02.1987 at 6.00 a.m. Dr. S.B. Patil P.W.13 companyducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Venkatesh on 05.02.1987.
Shivanna A 3 assaulted the deceased Venkatesh with a club on his shoulder and Venkategowda A 1 assaulted the deceased with a chopper on the left thigh whereas Muddegowda A 2 assaulted the deceased with a chopper on the left arm and left ear.
K.B. Jayaramappa P.W. 20 who, at the relevant time, was the Station House Officer of the Police Station, registered a case Crime No.
97 of 1989 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC on the allegations that all of them formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to cause the death of Venkatesh, the deceased herein, and in prosecution of the same, they murdered the deceased and caused injuries to Rajanna P.W.1 and Kenchaiah P.W.3 .
He also companytended that the High Court, on the same set of facts and on re appreciation of the evidence without properly numbericing the companytradictions in the ocular evidence of the injured witnesses and one eyewitness, has erroneously companyvicted the appellants on flimsy grounds.
Further evidence on record would show that the injured witnesses had been subjected to searching lengthy cross examination and questions numbering more than hundred were being put to each witness.
Venketagowda A 1 is the father in law of companyplainant Rajanna P.W.1 and Venkatappa W.7 is the father of the deceased.
Therefore, according to the learned companynsel, the trial companyrt was justified in acquitting the appellants.
Rajanna P.W.1 and Kenchaiah P.W.3 were medically examined by Dr. D. Rajanna P.W.9 on 05.11.1986 at about 11.00 a.m. and he found simple injuries on their persons.
As a result of injuries, the deceased Venkatesh fell down on the ground.
The discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned companynsel for the appellants, are minor and insignificant.
Dr. C.R. Rangaraju P.W. 4 found three injuries on the person of Venkatesh out of which companypound fracture of the left femur lower end was grievous in nature while other injuries were simple in nature.
According to the opinion of Dr. S.B. Patil P.W.13 , the cause of death of Venkatesh was due to respiratory failure as a result of companysolidation of lungs secondary to fracture of thigh bone.
Govindappa A 4 assaulted Rajanna P.W.1 on his right hand with a spear whereas Govindaiah A 5 assaulted him with a club on his back.
On behalf of the appellants, Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel, companytended that the trial companyrt, on a proper appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses, namely, Rajanna P.W.1 , Kenchaiah P.W. 3 and the eyewitness Moodalagiri P.W.2 has rightly companye to the companyclusion that because of prior enmity the appellants were falsely implicated in the case after due deliberation.
The occurrence, in question, took place on 04.11.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. when Rajanna P.W.1 , Kenchaiah P.W.3 , Lakshmana P.W. 10 and the deceased Venkatesh went to the Co operative Society at Chowdanapalya and companylected food grains from the ration shop.
No separate sentence, however, was awarded for the offences under Sections 143 and 148 of IPC.
The appellants took their trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C. No.
177/1986 vide FIR Exhibit P 30 against the appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 324 of the IPC.
The trial companyrt, after examining the prosecution evidence, observed that there was delay in lodging the FIR and numbericing the companytradictions and improvements between the ocular evidence of Rajanna P.W.1 , Moodalagiri P.W.2 , Kenchaiah W. 3 and Lakshmana P.W. 10 came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had number established its case against the accused and companysequently acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment and order dated 15.04.1999.
When they were returning to their village, they found Venkategowda A 1 standing in front of his house armed with a chopper.
On 04.02.1987, K.N. Mariyappa, who at the relevant time was working as Head Constable in Kudur Police Station, prepared a supplementary F.I.R. at 9.00 p.m. and companyverted the offence from Section 324, IPC, to Section 302, IPC, and thereafter FIR was sent to the Judicial Magistrate and other higher officials.
The witnesses were examined in the companyrt after a gap of almost ten years.
Hence, this appeal.
Dr. Rangarajan P.W.18 medically examined the victim at Victoria Hospital.
The factum of death was intimated to the Police Station.
The victim was shifted after two days to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore.
The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded number guilty to the charges and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case because of political rivalry and animosity between the companyplainant party and the accused party.
After companymission of the offences, the appellants tried to assault Lakshmana P.W.10 who escaped from their clutches and took shelter in the house of P.W. 12 and P.W. 14.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. This appeal is preferred by Venkategowda A 1 , Muddegowda A 2 , Shivanna A 3 , Govindappa A 4 Govindaiah A 5 , Venkataramanaiah A 6 , Rajashekaraiah A 7 , Lakkegowda A 8 , Rama A 9 , Shivanna A 10 , Mahadeva A 11 , Ganghahanumaiah A 12 , Singraiah A 13 , Annaiah A 14 , Bettegowda A 15 , Chikkanna A 16 , Govindaiah A 17 , Rama A 18 , appellants herein, questioning the companyrectness of the final judgment and order dated 7.3.2006 made in Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses and marked 32 exhibits.
On examination of the evidence of Rajanna W.1 , we find that he was examined in chief on 26.11.1996, but his cross examination companytinued and he was cross examined again on 27.11.1997.
Likewise, Kenchaiah P.W.3 was examined in chief on 28.11.1996, but his cross examination took place on 28.4.1997.
On reprisal of the evidence of the injured witnesses Rajanna P.W.1 and Kenchaiah P.W.3 as also the evidence of eyewitness Moodalagiri P.W.2 , it is clear that the evidence on record fully establishes the case of the prosecution against Venkategowda A 1 , Muddegowda A 2 , Shivanna A 3 , Govindappa A 4 and Govindaiah A 5 although, there were certain discrepancies in the testimony of the injured witnesses and eyewitness in regard to the weapons of offence individually used by A 1 , A 2 , A 3 , A 4 and A 5 for inflicting injuries on the person of each of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 as also on the person of the deceased Venkatesh.
In such type of cross examination by the defence, some improvements, companytradictions, and omissions are bound to occur in their evidence, but they are number of serious nature and they cannot be treated as vital and significant companytradictions so as to disbelieve and discard the substratum of the prosecution case.
The evidence of the injured witnesses Rajanna P.W.1 , Kenchaiah P.W.3 and eyewitness Moodalagiri P.W.2 has been rightly appreciated and accepted by the High Court and we find numbercogent and sound reason to differ from the reasoning and finding recorded by the High Court against Venkategowda A 1 , Muddegowda A 2 , Shivanna A 3 , Govindappa A 4 and Govindaiah A 5 holding them guilty of the offences.
