STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAREDDY AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the State, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.2.2007 rendered by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C.No.121/2004, whereby, all the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 448, 307 r/w 149 of Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 29.3.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. there was a free fight between two groups on account of political rivalry, in which persons from both the groups sustained injuries. Cross complaints were filed. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, the respondents were charged, tried and prosecuted in view of an FIR lodged by PW1. Similarly cross complaint was also filed against 14 persons including the injured witnesses in the present case namely PWs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14. This court is informed that the cross case filed against the complainant and the witness in the present case by the rival group has also been ended in acquittal. The State has not filed any appeal against the judgment and order passed in the cross complaint. It is against this background we have perused the entire evidence on record and more particularly the evidence of Narayanaswamy S/o Nagappa (PW5) and the Dr. Ravindra(PW10). We have also perused the evidence of other victims namely PWs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14. All the injured witnesses, except PW5, as has been stated by Doctor Ravindra (PW10) in his deposition, sustained simple injuries. We have seen the description of injuries which show that these witnesses suffered lacerated wounds, abrasions, tenderness, swelling etc., PW5 sustained only one injury which was described by the doctor (PW10) as follows:

(3.) PW10 had referred the patient (PW5) to Orthopedic Surgeon at Chickballapur. According to the doctor's opinion, the injury was grievous in nature. He so expressed on the basis of opinion of Orthopeditian (OPD No.3308, x-ray No.560/03-2004). It is pertinent to note that the opinion of the Orthopedic surgeon is not a part of the record. Only wound certificate Ex.P14 is on record. From bare perusal of the wound certificate coupled with the opinion expressed by the doctor (PW10) in his evidence it is not clear as to why the doctor has opined the injury as grievous in nature. It is not reflected either in the wound certificate or in the evidence of the doctor that as a result of the assault PW5 sustained any fracture.