STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NANNESAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A.No.1/2014 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the appeal. Perused the reasons indicated in the affidavit accompanying the application. Though the reasons assigned are routine, considering that an appeal against the acquittal has been filed, the delay is condoned. The appeal is taken up for consideration.

(2.) THE prosecution had charged the accused of having committed the offences under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. The said charge was based on the oral complaint made in Urdu and said to have been reduced into writing. The complainant was one Mubarak Duggatti aged about ten years, who is the son of the deceased. The prosecution in addition to evidence of the complainant -PW1 had also examined the witnesses at PWs.2 to 21, relied upon the documents at Exhs. P1 to P23 and a material object was produced. The Court below on analyzing the evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge and has accordingly acquitted the accused acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. It is against the said acquittal, the State is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) RESPONDENT though served has remained un -represented.