STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MUNIMAILAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addl SPP on merits in this appeal. We need to take serious cognizance of the submission canvassed by him. He has pointed out that the PWs 1 to 3 have given evidence to the effect that the accused had assaulted them with bricks and an iron rod and that they sustained injuries. Apart from minor in consistencies, which are quite natural in the circumstance of the case, the submission is that the evidence of the witnesses is more than sufficient to sustain a conviction and that the acquittal was unjustified.

(2.) ON a perusal of the order passed by the learned JMFC what we find is that the prosecution has not even tendered the wound certificate nor for that matter has the prosecution examined two crucial witnesses, namely, the Doctor and the investigating Officer. The learned counsel submitted before us that the record indicates that the IO and the Doctor did not remain present despite necessary efforts being made and that, therefore, the case had to be disposed of in their absence.

(3.) WE absolutely refuse to accept this explanation because in a case of this nature it has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. In the present instance, the evidence is to the effect that the accused damaged the wall belonging to the complainant, but more importantly that the injuries were caused in the assault to PWs 1 to 3. Normally, the Court would have, as justice requires, imposed suitable punishment on the wrong doers and also would have ensured that the injured or aggrieved parties are compensated for their injuries and loss.