STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALUR POLICE MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT Vs. RONALD LOBO S/O JOSEPH LOBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State challenging the Judgment dated 10.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Crl. A. Nos. 150/2010 and 96/2011 wherein the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeals against the Judgment of conviction in CC Nos. 500/2009 and 966/2007 respectively convicting both appellants therein for offences punishable under sections 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment and fine by separate Judgments and Orders dated 19.6.2010 and 16.6.2011 respectively. From the records, it is seen that a counter case was registered against the complainant PW.1 and PW.4 in respect of the same incident which occurred at the same, place date and time. It is seen that the incident has taken place on 19.07.2007. The facts of the case are that PWs. 1 and 4 who are accused in CC No. 952/2007 had gone to the house of the accused on 19.07.2007 at about 9.30 pm and demanded to return the money of Rs. 60,000/ - for which the accused refused to return the money and thereafter PWs.1 and 4 abused them in filthy language. It is further stated that immediately Accused No.1 picked up firewood/club and hit on the head of PW.1 due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. PW. 4 who is husband of PW.1 came to the rescue of PW.1 and at that time Accused No. 2 hit on the left eye and face of PW. 4 with a torch and pushed PWs.1 and 4 due to which PWs. 1 and 4 fell down. PWs.2 and 3 who are the witnesses to the incident came to the rescue of PWs.1 and 4 and thereafter Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went inside their house. PWs.2 and 3 took PWs.1 and 4 to Niduvale Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged by PW.1 at Balur Police Station.

(2.) MATERIAL placed before us further discloses that on the basis of the complaint of the accused, a counter case as CC No. 952/2007 was registered against PWs.1 and 4 in respect of the said incident. The Joint Director of Prosecution has appointed a Special Additional Public Prosecutor as Public Prosecutor in CC No. 966/2007 since the regular Additional Public Prosecutor was representing the prosecution in CC No. 952/2007. Both the aforesaid learned Assistant and Additional Assistant Public Prosecutors did not bring to the notice of the court about the pendency of counter case and the case in CC No. 952/2007 has been disposed of while CC No. 966/2007 was pending.

(3.) BOTH the accused have preferred separate criminal appeals before the Sessions Court numbering Criminal Appeal Nos. 150/2010 and 96/2011. Since both the matters arise out of the same incident, the learned Sessions Judge took up the matter together and by common Judgment dated 10.11.2011 allowed the appeals filed by the accused and ordered acquittal of both the accused.