KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2011 passed in S.C.No.73/2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.12.2009 at about 8.00 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 went to the shop of P.W.1 with an intention to take away his life. Accused No.1 inflicted injury with sickle and caused both grievous and simple injuries. The other accused persons also assaulted with their hands and also caused life threat and abused in a filthy language. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The accused persons were secured before the Trial Court and they did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. Hence the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked the documents at Exs.P. 1 to 15 and also got marked M.Os.1 and 2. The accused persons were subjected to 313 statement and the accused did not choose to examine any defence evidence. The Trial Judge after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 and convicted accused No.1/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, the appeal is filed before this Court.

(3.) The grounds urged in the appeal are that the Trial Judge has committed an error in relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., victim as well as P.Ws.2 and 7. P.W.1 was not sure if the alleged weapon produced before the Court marked as M.O.1 was the same weapon in which the assault took place. When the weapon itself is not identified, the Trial Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant. The discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 that he did not know who were all present during the incident, itself is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Inspite of the said answers given by P.W.1, the Trial Court has committed an error. The Trial Court has made an observation that P.Ws.1 to 3 have supported the case of the prosecution in their chief examination and they turned hostile only in the cross-examination and hence accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused. The same is erroneous. P.Ws.1 to 3 have turned hostile and treating them as hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor cross-examined those witnesses and not turned hostile while cross-examining them. The very observation of the Trial Court is erroneous.