STATE Vs. SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard three learned Counsels at length, in the course of which, we have examined the appeal on merits and have also had an occasion to read the records.

(2.) THE principal submission on behalf of the appellant-State is that the trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3, who happened to be the father and brother of the deceased, in the light of the fact that the medical evidence does support the oral evidence, that the reason for acquittal are weak and unsustainable and consequently, the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered.

(3.) THE respondents 1, 3 and 4 are represented by their learned Advocate smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi and so far as the remaining respondents, namely, respondents 2 and 5 are concerned, we were required to appoint the learned advocate Sri Somashekar Angadi, as Amicus Curiae Counsel. Both the learned Counsels have strongly supported the order of acquittal and the principal argument canvassed by them is that the eye-witnesses have unequivocally deposed to the fact that the assault was with the use of stone, two of which were of reasonable weight, weighing about 2 Kgs and 3 Kgs, respectively, and the third one which is alleged to have been dropped on the chest of the deceased was supposedly weighing over 10 Kgs. What has been pointed out to us is that the record indicates that these were relatively heavy stones and more importantly, that were not particularly smooth edged and it has been vehemently submitted before us that the medical evidence totally destroys the oral evidence, because there are no injuries of any consequence on the body of the deceased. More importantly, the learned Counsel who represents the first set of respondents brought it to our notice that the scrutiny of the post-mortem report conclusively establishes that there is not a single internal injury and she submits that it is absolutely and totally impossible to accept the evidence of the eye-witnesses in the light of the medical evidence. Two specific aspects were highlighted by the learned Counsel, the first being if a 10 Kgs. Stone were lifted and thrown on the chest of the deceased that apart from the external injuries that it would most certainly cause fracture of bones and that in turn would have caused serious internal injuries to the organs situated on that part of the body. The absence of these injuries, in the argument of the learned Counsel, would certainly indicate that the eye-witnesses have virtually fabricated the evidence.