STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHRISAIL SATEEPPA KARKALAMETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal. There are two respondents. They along with five others were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302, 323 and 324 read with S. 149, IPC. The trial Court convicted A-l under S. 352, A-2 under S. 302, IPC and acquitted the, rest. The convicted accused preferred an appeal. The High Court acquitted them. Hence, the present appeal by the State.

(2.) The occurrence is said to have taken place on 5-12-80. During November, 1980, the State Government had taken scarcity work in the famine striken area and a tank situated near the village was being deepened. On the date of the occurrence a number of villagers were engaged in the removal of silt from the tank which was a fertile soil, could be used as manure also. The deceased was also engaged in removing the silt. At about 12 noon there was some dispute regarding the removal of silt between the deceased and the accused. A-2 came along with other accused, pulled down the deceased and stabbed the deceased with a Jambia. P.W. 1 reached the place and other villagers also reached there including P.Ws. 2-4 and removed the injured deceased to the hospital. He was treated but he died. A case was registered. The inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem. The doctor found one incised wound on a right frontal area and another incised wound on the left side of the chest injuring the left lung. The doctor opined that the deceased died because of shock and haemorrhage.

(3.) The prosecution relied on four eyewitnesses. It may be mentioned here that A-4 also gave a report in which a prosecution witness figured as accused. Four of the accused injured during the same incident. The doctor who examined A-4 found five injuries on him including incised wound and injury No. 3 was grievous. On A-2 an incised wound and another injury was found. On A-7 there was a lacerated wound on right mandibular region and two other injuries on other parts of the body. A separate case was registered on the complaint given by A-4. However, for the purpose of the present case, it may be mentioned, that no plausible explanation has been put forward by the prosecution. Taking all that into consideration it could emerge that the place and time and presence of some of the witnesses and accused are not in dispute but regarding the origin of the occurrence the prosecution case is totally cryptic and there is no explanation as to how so many accused happened to receive so many injuries. Taking this aspect into consideration the High Court found it difficult to rely on the witnesses. There is any amount of doubt as to how the quarrel started and who started the attack. Because of this vagueness the evidence of the~ prosecution witnesses became unreliable. The reasons given by the High Court are quite sound. We see no ground to interfere. The criminal appeal is dismissed.