Karnataka HC Removes Assault Accused’s Brother From Trial Over Complainant’s Conflicting Accounts, But Lets Case Against Alleged Assailant Proceed

Respondent No. 2 alleged that on 22 February 2017 Lawrence Veigas assaulted her with a stick while she was plucking tamarind on her land, and that his brother David Veigas instigated him to kill her

Although she later told police that David had been mistakenly named and was not present, the police charge-sheeted Lawrence alone

At trial, respondent No. 2 again implicated David; the Magistrate, relying on her testimony and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, added him as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

David challenged that order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Lawrence separately sought quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the complaint arose from a civil property dispute and that the injuries alleged were not reflected in the wound certificate

Section 319 Cr.P.C. permits a court to proceed against a person who appears, from the evidence, to have committed an offence; the power requires more than a prima facie case at the stage of framing a charge and should be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence supports the person’s implication.

The court relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC 903; and Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., AIRONLINE 2021 SC 799

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process; the court held that a pending civil dispute, by itself, does not warrant quashing where the charge-sheet materials disclose a prima facie criminal case

As to David, the complainant’s trial testimony implicated him, but it conflicted with her statement to police that he had been mistakenly named and was absent from the scene.

The court considered the allegation inconsistent and uncorroborated, noted the defence material said to place David elsewhere, and found that the evidence did not meet the heightened threshold for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.

As to Lawrence, the complaint specifically alleged that he entered the property and assaulted respondent No. 2; the record included a wound certificate, statements from three cited eyewitnesses, and recovery of the alleged stick.

Those matters required testing at trial, and the civil dispute did not negate the prima facie case

The petition in Crl.P. No. 7228/2024 was dismissed, leaving the proceedings against Lawrence to continue; the Trial Court was directed to dispose of C.C. No. 216/2018 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven months of receiving a certified copy of the order