STATE Vs. RICHARD MONTHEIRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Sections 332, 333 and 353 IPC on a trial held by Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.

(2.) The respondent herein was accused in Cr.No.56/2003 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 IPC on a complaint of one Narayan. After registration of the crime, PW3 - Damodara continued the investigation in the said crime and he went to the house of respondent on 28.08.2003 at about 10.00 a.m. to apprehend the respondent. PW3 was accompanied by PW4 Umesh and other police constables arrested the respondent at about 10.00 p.m. While they were returning to the police station, on the way, the respondent tried to escape. It is alleged that the respondent took out a knife from his waist and assaulted PW3 on his left fore arm. The respondent also caused bite injury to PW4 - Umesh and injuries to other police constables i.e., CW3 Ramanaika and CW4 Albert. The police after overpowering the respondent brought him to the police station and later he was produced before the Magistrate. On a complaint filed by PW3 Damodara, PW5 - Lakshminarayana recorded the complaint as per (Ex.P5) which was registered in Cr.No.57/2003 for the offence under Sections 332, 333 and 353 IPC. During the course of investigation, spot mahazar was held as per Ex.P7 in the presence of attesting witnesses. The injured was examined and injury certificates Exs.P1 to P3 were collected. The knife (MO1) and clothes of the injured (MOs.2 to 5) were seized. The seized articles were sent to the opinion of forensic expert and the report (Ex.P12) was collected. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was laid against the respondent for the aforesaid charges. During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6, documents Exs.P1 to P12 and Mos.1 to 5 were marked. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led, but got marked the documents Exs.D1 - the contradiction in the evidence of PW4. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material on record, granted an order of acquittal. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed by the State.

(3.) I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader and learned Counsel for the respondent.