GOPAL SUBRAMANI PANDIT Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the complaihnant before the police and is directed against the judgment of acquittal made by the Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, II Court, Hubli, in CC. No.998 of 1971.

(2.) The petitioner complained belore the police in regard to a certain incident which took place in broad day-light on 24-5-1971. It was his case that the accused trespassed into his house at about 3 p.m. on that day and assaulted him besides damaging some of his properties such as radio, trunk etc. The police, after investigation, placed a charge sheet against the accused under Secs.452, 453, 323, 427 read with S.34 IPC. The termed Magistrate, after a perusal of the police papers and after hearing the accused, framed charges in respect of those offences. In support of the prosecution two eye witnesses have been examined, among others. They are PWs. 1 & 2. PW.3 is a person who arrived immediately after [the incident and speaks to the several circumstances of mischief. The defence of the accused was essentially one of not guilty and alibi. But, in the course of the trial authority was sought to be developed that the complainant was liable to repay certain sums paid by one of the accused in the expectation of the complainant securing a job for such accused. It is also in evidence that the accused were apprehended by police on various dates at different places. The relationship of witnesses PWs.1 to 3 has been shown to be as follows. PW. 1 was proposing to marry PW. 3 a nurse in a hospital. PW.2 is the brother of PW.3. It is brought out in evidence that PW.2 was accustomed to go and assist PW.1 in preparing food. On the date of the incident PW.2 was rendering such assistance to PW.1 This is all the relationship that has been brought out between these three witnesses.

(3.) The learned Magistrate rejects the evidence of PWs.l and 2 merely on the basis of this relationship and observes thus: Even though there is a corroboratipn between the testimonies of PWs.l and 2 to a major extent, I decline to accept their testimonies to be independent and uninfluenced in the absence of corroboration of their testimonies by the independent witnesses. Out of the ten witnesses 'examined on behalf of the prosecution excepting the first three, none is examined as eye witness before the Court. Since PW.1 to 3 are interested and related to each other, I answer the first and second points in negative and giving the benefit of doubt to all the accused pass the following order.