STATE Vs. N PRAKASH S/O CHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE State is in appeal, questioning the acquittal of the accused in the following circumstances: It is alleged that on 29.08.2002 at about 9.00 AM, there was a complaint by one Mallikarjun who was said to be the administrator of a factory known as Swastik Drugs, situated in an industrial area at Kolar village, Bidar District. It was alleged that on the said day at about 8.00 AM about 20 to 25 persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and were restraining the workers from entering the factory premises and that they were scolding them in filthy language and holding out threats to their life and limb. It is alleged that one Shohil, the Vice President of the union, N K Prakash who was the Joint Secretary, Dastagir and the treasurer were standing about 10 feet away from the factory gate and were intimidating the other persons and preventing them from entering the factory premises and they were instigating them to create a ruckus. There were 29 other persons who had continued to restrain the workers from entering into the factory premises. On the complaint, a case had been registered against the named accused and the accused were thereafter arrested and produced before the Court and later released on bail. The allegations against the accused were in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 341, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). After further proceedings, charges having been framed, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had examined 5 witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3. The Court had thus framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) THOUGH the learned Government Pleader makes a serious endeavor to sustain the allegations and the circumstance that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, as pointed out by the Trial Court there is no cohesion in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and consequently the Court having rejected the same, it cannot be faulted. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The appeal is dismissed.