(1.) THOUGH the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged an Order to frame the charge against him for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989" for short].
(3.) WHEN there is inconsistency in the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, it has been held by the Apex Court that as the evidence of the doctor is by way of opinion and when the evidence of the eye witness is consistent, cogent and acceptable, it is the ocular evidence that has to be preferred. As could be seen from the copy of the post -mortem report produced in this revision, the death was due to respiratory failure and also struggle by the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that the petitioner beat and kicked Channakeshava [deceased] and there was bleeding from the mouth and nose. It is on the way to the hospital that Channakeshava succumbed to the injuries. So, when the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is a matter of appreciation by the trial Court after conclusion of the trial, I do not think that at this stage a finding could be given as to whether the petitioner is not responsible for the offence punishable under Sections 302 or 323 IPC. It is only after conclusion of the trial that the trial Court has to assess the evidence of these witnesses and then come to an appropriate conclusion. Prima facie looking to the materials placed on record, I do not think that the trial Court committed any error in framing the additional charges. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision. Accordingly, it is dismissed Consequently, I.A. No. 1/2011 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is rejected.