JAGADEESH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who faced trial for the offences punishable under Ss.341, 323, 324 and 506 read with S.34 of IPC in C.C. No. 333/2005, in the Court of JMFC at Pandavapura, were acquitted by a Judgment/Order dated 30.10.2009. Prosecution filed Crl. A. No. 93/2009 in the Sessions Court at Mandya. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part. Order of acquittal for the offences under Ss.341 and 504 IPC was confirmed. However, the order of acquittal in respect of the offences under Ss.323, 324 and 506 IPC was set aside. Accused No. 1 was found guilty of the offence under S.324 and 506 IPC. Accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were found guilty of the offences under Ss.323 and 506 IPC. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5, 000/ - for the offence under S.324 IPC., in default, to undergo S.I. for 6 months. Accused No. 1 was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2, 000/ - for the offence under S.506 IPC., in default, to undergo S.I. for 3 months. Accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1, 000/ - for the offence under S.323 IPC., in default, to undergo S.I. for 3 weeks. They were further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1, 500/ - for the offence under S.506 IPC and in default, to undergo S.I. for 3 months. Out of the fine amount, when realised, Rs. 2, 500/ - each was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and his son i.e., PWs 1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved, accused have filed this criminal revision petition. Sri C.R. Gopala Swamy, learned advocate, contended that though the essential ingredients of Ss.323, 324 and 506 IPC has not been established by adducing credible evidence, petitioners have been found guilty and illegally sentenced. Learned counsel submitted that, other than the interested testimony of CWs 1 and 2/PWs 1 and 2 and the police team - PWs 10 and 11, there is no evidence of whatsoever nature on the basis of which the petitioners can be held guilty of the offences under Ss.323, 324 and 506 IPC. He submitted that, PW -2 is the complainant and PW -1 is his son and that they have deposed falsely, on account of the enmity in the Village. He submitted that alleged eye -witnesses PWs 3, 4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case and were treated as hostile witnesses. Even the spot mahazar Ex.P5 has not been approved since PWs 6 and 11 did not support the prosecution case and the witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses. He submitted that Exs.P6 & P7 issued by PW -9 shows that injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel submitted that MO -1 has not been recovered on the statement of any of the accused and the spot mahazar witnesses having not supported the prosecution case, presence of MO -1 on the spot has not been established and even otherwise, Exs.P6 and P7 does not show any injury having been caused by use of MO -1. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are perverse and illegal and hence, interference in the matter is called for.

(2.) SRI Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is justified, since the two victims have deposed and the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offences under Ss.323, 324 and 506 IPC.

(3.) PW -2 is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW -1 is the son of PW -2. PWs 3, 4 and 5 were examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence of the incident in question, i.e., they were examined as eye -witnesses. PWs 6, 7 and 11 were examined to prove the spot mahazar Ex.P5. PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 & 11 have not supported the prosecution case. However, the evidence of the injured is credible. The mere fact that the alleged eye witnesses and the spot mahazar witnesses did not support the prosecution case is not fatal, on account of the availability of Exs.P6 & P7 and deposition of PWs 8, 9 and 10.