STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. B THAMMANNA, P S I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents for the charges under Sections 342, 324 read with Section 34 IPC on a trial held by the JMFC, Doddaballapur.

(2.) THE facts reveal that PW19 - Jayanti is the wife of PW17 Suresh. Ramesh, the deceased was the employee under PW17 Suresh. The deceased was teasing Jayanthi, the wife of Suresh stating that he has love for her. There was a quarrel between Jayanthi and deceased Ramesh prior to the incident. Few days earlier to the complaint, Jayanthi had gone to her parental home with her minor children. When PW17 Suresh went for search of his wife to her parental home, she was not found. He informed this fact to his father PW20 D Srinivas. They suspected the foul play by deceased Ramesh as he had once quarreled with PW19. Therefore, PWs.17 and 20 orally complained the fact of deceased Ramesh kidnapping PW19. The accused who was in charge of the police station on the date of oral complaint, received the phone message of PWs.17 and 20 and after searching Ramesh, the deceased apprehend him and returned to the police station and for the purpose of interrogation, he was kept in a cell in the police station. By that time, PW1 Shivananda, the brother of deceased Ramesh was informed that his brother having been taken to the police station by the accused. He went to the police station and saw that Ramesh who was in the cell was vomiting blood. The accused took the deceased on a motor cycle to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. The doctor examined and declared him as brought dead. It is in these circumstances, PW1 Shivananda, approached the police station and submitted his complaint as per Ex.P1 on 10.01.2003. On registration of the said complaint, FIR was sent to the Magistrate. During the investigation, the statement of witnesses were recorded, spot mahazar was held as per Exs.P2 and P3, inquest of the body of deceased was held as per Ex.P4. The dead body was entrusted to postmortem examination and Ex.P11 - the postmortem report was secured. During the investigation, it revealed that Ramesh had consumed Cyanide apprehending the insult at the hands of accused because of his confinement in the cell and assault during interrogation. Therefore, the police filed the chargesheet for the offence under Sections 342, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 36 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P13 and Mos.1 to 17. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted the respondents for the charge under Sections 342, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.