STATE OF KARNATAKA v. PARASHURAM RAMCHANDRA LAMANI

Judgment

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALGHATGI POLICE STATION APPELLANT (By Sri V.M.BANAKAR, ASPP) AND:

2. PARASHURAM RAMCHANDRA LAMANI AGE: 24 YEARS, 0CC: COOLTE, R/O MACHAPUR TANDA, TQ: KALGHATGI. ANAND KRISHNAPPA LAMANI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:COOL,IE R/O MACHAPUR TANDA, TQ:KALGHATGL .1. 3 CHIDANAND SHIN APPA LAMANI AGE: 34 YEARS. OCC:COOLIE. RO MACHAPLJR TANDA. TQ:KALGHATGI REcPONDI:NTS (By Sri G A HOLEYANNAVAR. ADVOCATE) THE AND JUDGMENT THiS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FiLED U/S 378(1) & (3) Cr P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL ORDER OF AGAINST ACQUITtAL DATED 30/01/2009 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT NO.1. DHARWAD IN SESSION CASE NO. 84/ 2007 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 324. 504 AND 506 R/W SECION 34 OF IPC, SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITtAL AND CONVTCT 4PPEAL AND ALLOWING THIS SENTENCE THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGE SHEETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THIS CRIMINAl APPEAl COMING ON FOR HbAR1NG IHIS I)AY. MOHAN SHANMNAGOI DAN. I)kLTVERED 1HE POLLOWING: JUDUME\t U Ipiuc icr f ac’q 1 d I 2OC PXfc C I tn— Fosi itar I ( U41 . On ‘ r. (‘1 1

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.V. 10 ‘as ulaying colours in Floli festi al or’ 4-3 2O(i at about 12 00 noon ak ng with other children it th at point of time accused No.1 beat P.V. 10 and told him ic’ go to his home. P.W.2 Laxman Kubappa Lamani uncle of P W 4 iient to enquire about the same with accused No.1: Accused No.1 quarreled vuth P W 2 and sent him back Thereafter all the accused went near the house of the complainant (P.W 6) who is the lather of P W 10 and assaulted him with deadlc eapons, consequent upon which P.W.6 suffered ‘njunes on the scalp and other pins of the hod’ hic h ire found to h th Dot T nit a %aS lodged b’ th€ ife A P V 1, that s .Vk u-nit’ ?Li ‘)( ‘egisttrcd ri Cnirc %U il Q f”r ‘tv C i,l 2 i) icad ;itlz 3 0’ ia tlt t 3,(c rjf t( I t ‘I sht-rt. I ) a C D C i S i S Q 0 C < D C D C D C D C D C 0 0 i S D C D C D C ) , C o 1 5 C c c D C ) C C i S D C i S i S 1 5 ) ) 5 D C D C ) ) 5 — C i S i S D C C < — i S 0 i S 0 D C a _ r f D C . 0 . a : ) ) 5 D C ) + 0 0 D C + r : . . D C . i S D C i S L F i S 0 i S . : D C D C ) ) 5 i S D C i S D C m 1 5 ) , C D C D C 0 D C “ — i S D C n r C 1 5 D C 0 P i S — D P ) ) 5 D C D C i L C i S D C 0 C i S . - 0 t r ) ) 5 D C D C D C ) ) 5 i D C S D C i S — D C D C ) i C D C D C i D C ) ) 5 C D C . ç D C ” - - b i S D C C D C ) ) 5 D C i S 1 5 D C c c 1 J ( D C D C C ) ) 5 i S 0 t i S D C — D C D C D C i S D C 0 i S 0 . Y C t r i S D C 1 5 D C - D C i S S D C i S 0 i S i S 1 5 D C D C : . - . . D C D C D C i S i S 1 5 0 D C i S C D C D C D . C ) a D C S i S ) C i S . 1 — 5 , C - i S : D C 0C D i 0S 1 t r i S D C i S C < C ) “ c c : o - ) C ) a D C : i S i S 0 L F i c i S D C i S D C i S D C ) a + a D r C i S i S 0 i S D C D C 0 Z ! + r i S D C i S L F D C i S “ 0 - - r i S D C 0 D C i S D C i s . ) a h r t D C 1 . g • i Di C 0 i S D C i S L F . ) C ” - C D C i S D C D a C C i S L F . . l f D C D C D C r i S : : c presence cannot be doubted over the scene of offence. P.W.6 is the injured witness. P.W.7 is also an eye witness and said to be injured.

5. The complainant P.W. 1 has deposed in consonance with the averments found in Ex.P- 1. She has deposed as to what had happened in the morning of 4-3-2007 and about the factum of her son P.W. 10 being assaulted by accused No.1 prohibiting him from playing Holi. She has also deposed about the assault by the accused on P.W.6. The evidence of P.W. 1 is fully supported by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 6 & 7 and four inmates of the house have also deposed in consonance with the evidence of P.W. 1.

6. The injured P.W.6 has deposed about the manner in which the assault took place on him by the accused. The motive behind the incident is also spoken to by him. We do not find anything to discard the evidence of P.W.6. It is not in dispute that P.W.6 has t - D C D C D C C D C D C C D D C j C D C ) C D C ‘ C ) ) C ) i C H P ) l C C i D C D C D C ) C D C D C D C ) s C c D C D C P D C X C 1 . ) C C L C D C C C C • • ‘ r ) C i l f C D C < D C D C L C . C D C C D R ) • C ) C D C D C C D C • ) C i C P D C i D C D C D C D C D C C C ) C D C ‘ + — L C C ) ) C Q i I ( D C D C D C , ) C D C D C D C C + r D C r D C ) s C ) C ) C C _ U P D C ) C ) ) D C D C < ) C D C D C ) C ) s C i D C + r D C 5 ) C D C C r S q % c ø D C ? r D C ) s C D C Z U P ) ) j U P t r C C U P ) i C ) C 7 I D C n r C D C C s D C ) i C Q T C D C 1 C c r D C D C < s — ) ) C r D C D C < ± r ) s D ) s C i C i ) i C r . j 7 HoyLeter ‘ic fmd that WI his aot ,uffarad Injur on the dau of I c zflC ident As -mild be &ct r. Ir iii F, P .. the Docini hHs nentira11 mad’- an rntle’rsrm. 1, in the iound certificate tnat .‘hc has cuffered nJurics at about 7 5’ p.m on 4 5 2O0 The incident admittedly haq occurred on i2 00 noon on 3 3 200? It has not occurred it

about 7.55 p.m Cm 4-n-2007. The wound renjfirate is issued on 15-5-2007. Of’ course at two place the Doctor has made an endorsement that thc mjured was seen by her n 4 3 200? The same contradicts •hc Do t r • ri n found in E”c Pt in the first paragraph of thc (ertifieatc In vie of this confusion, we do not deem it appropriarr tLI retv upor E”c P ‘r and the e’ ‘ch-nre ni P W 7 t’it’ rc’ga-’l i-.’ C4I°it’(,f fl r •u’ opiror brut) Fisr t 13 vec4 F”., ,cas.,rqhlr dir t iv’th ‘grd tu thr c.%SnU.t ••: 3 ti t 1 1 e’,rwi t ‘F ‘,j_%- b ••• •; ;., I . •t’1 t11 I_ ,. ‘ •.1% ‘I j • .i— ,,• ,. I I’ , has proved its case with regard to the assault on PW6 beyond reasonable doubt. 9, From the material record the possible conclusion which could be reached is that the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC as they have assaulted and caused simple injuries on PW6 over the head region. The view taken by the trial Court under the circumstances, is not a plausible or possible view. Thus. in our opinion the Judgment and order of acquittal acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is I.iable to be set aside,

10. TIiough the charge the offences )LIi1i5i1EuJi LiflULti De;LI1I)J / ‘tJ) 3U0 reau \ ILII ‘mr’’e ‘(Th1 34 1PC and other offences in our considered opinion the said charge is not proved except under Sect.ion 324 of 1PC. The injured has not suffered ny grievous injury; f course the injured has suffered simple injuries D C C o C D C C D C C i D C L C D P r t C D P L C t C D C 9 D C D C . D C D C t C C D C D P D C _ D C . . . L C D C o C . 2 L C D C . + r t C D P t C t C D C r D C + r D C D C P D C . C L C ) J ( D C . S L C C t j L C . C L C o C P ( D P L C L C L C D C ) C o C D P P ( L C o C L C D P _ • D P Z D C D P 2 . C C . D P D C C D P o C D C L C . D C C P ( D C 0 P L C P ( L C D C D P D P P ( L C D C 1 - - L C D P o C D C C P ( L C L C D P P ( L C D P D C ) + r D C . D P D P : . P C D C . . P ( D C D C D P ( ) C L C D C D C D C t D C C a D C o C L C . 9 C C D C C r L C r L C D C 1 n r t C C D C D C t C D C D C i L C * r Q i L C ) i o C D C r t C D C L C o C E L C o C ( c C a D C D C c ? D C o C C D C 9 R E L C D C a t C D C C D C D C D C o C L C D C C X D P ( L C D P ( C t C C L C D P . C D ( . C P D P D C O C C — D P D C P ( 2 f C D C D C D C D C D C D C D D C C C D 0 0 0 C D C D C D 0C D C D C D C C * r D C ÷ - D C D C D C D C 0 D C ‘ C • • D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C ) D C D C i D C D C D C C D C D C 0 r D C E D C t r D C D C . O t o • • ) D C n r . . . . D C 1 D C ) D C a C r D C D C t r C t r H D C D C c c D C D D C D C b . X - ç D C ) . 0 O C D rC D C D C D C D C C C D C D C h T E X D C 9 D C o C C < D C D C o 0 . D C C 9 D C r D C D C ) D R C C F r D C D C i D C C D C j D C D C D • C C D C ) 9 DzC C D D C D C D C D C D0 C D C C j D C D C I C D D 0 C D C D C D C D C CI D C D C D C C • 1 D C D C C D C D C j D C 0 D C D C D C D C D C D C t r D C D C D C C i D C D C D C D C C o D DC C 0 D C I t D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C . Cj D C D C D C D C t z r D C • D o C C F D C D C i 0 D C D C . • C - D C C j D C i : r • C t r D C D C • DC C i D C D C j * r 0 i D C 0 D C j + r D C D C C D C . C 0 ) C o D C ) D D C D C D C . j D C . C < D C D C D C ) I C II 11 from today. If the sum is not paid by the respondents! accused recovered as arrears of land revenue. e) The fine amount of Rs6OOO/ recovery PW6 compensation. The appeal is allowed inpart accordingly. i/ 3UDGE JTJ’J) Rsk