STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addl SPP. and the learned counsel who represents the respondents accused.

(2.) THE submission canvassed on behalf of the State is that, despite best efforts, the complainant and other witnesses could not be secured and that the acquittal that has resulted is really an acquittal by default. His submission is that, the court ought to have granted further time as the police have their own limitations since the endorsements indicated that one of the witnesses was dead and the others had gone out of town for some work. In sum and substance, the prayer is that the order of acquittal be set aside and that the case be remanded for a de novo trial.

(3.) WE have very carefully perused the record and what we find is that the incident in question was not one of utmost seriousness, though it is true that it has resulted in an injury which has been technically designated as a fracture - we are not undermining the gravity of the injury, but what we take note of is that the accused and the witnesses were all coolies, that they were itinerant persons who move from place to place an in this background, it would be harsh to reopen the criminal trial after eight years. The incident was one of the year 1995 and in out considered view, even assuming that some of the witnesses are available, the quality of their evidence, making allowance for the human factor, will be so extremely weak, that the possibility of the prosecution succeeding on the basis of this evidence is more than remote. It is after a careful consideration of these factors, that we decline to exercise our discretion in favour of a remand. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed.