A M VENKATESH Vs. A J RAJEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the Government Pleader.

(2.) The appellants were the accused before the trial court in the following circumstances :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 7 was not consistent. The complaint was not given by PW.1, but somebody else had written the same. He was unconscious all along and therefore, it is apparent that he was not in a position to lodge the complaint. The blood-stained clothes of PWs.1 to 3 were never produced. The recovery of material objects MOs. 1 to 4 were not proved since the panch wintess PW.8 did not support the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence of PW.4 and the contents of the wound certificate, Exhibits P.3 to P.5 did not corroborate the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3. The complaint was exaggerated and the incident was blown out of proportion. The accused were from Kallahalli Thanda and PWs.1 to 3 were from Badaladaka Doddagollahatti village,which were in different locations. The accused and PWs.1 to 3 were strangers to each other and there is no basis on which the accused had been named by PW.1 in his complaint. In any event, accused no.3 was never named in the complaint and this would definitely absolve accused no.3 of any guilt, as the case was clearly foisted against him.