STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAIGESHI; DURUGESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the husband of the complainant viz., Rangaswamy contested the Grama Panchayat election and had won; therefore, there was ill -will between Rangaswamy and certain other people who are politically ill disposed towards him. At 6.30 p.m. on 10.05.2012, while Rangaswamy was passing in front of Maramma Temple, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with him; on hearing the hue and cry, the complainant Kenchamma (wife of Rangaswamy) and her relative Latha came to the spot; accused Nos.1 and 2 along with accused Nos.3 and 4 attacked Rangaswamy and abused him in filthy language, consequent upon which, Rangaswamy sustained certain injuries; the injured was shifted to Hiriyur Government Hospital for treatment; complaint came to be lodged by Kenhcamma (wife of the injured) as per Ex.P1, based on which Crime No.70/10 came to be registered.

(2.) THE trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - with a default clause. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were also directed to give compensation of Rs.10,000/ - each to PW2 -Rangaswamy alias Rangappa. The Trial Court however, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) PW 1 is the eye -witness; she is the wife of the injured. PW1 has deposed that accused No.1 assaulted PW2 with a knife on his head, whereas, PW2 has deposed that accused No.1 assaulted him with a bill hook on his head and accused No.2 assaulted him with a knife. PW2 has further deposed that accused No.2 has assaulted him with wooden stick on his head; accused No.3 has assaulted with stone on PW2, but PW2 has not deposed about any assault on him by accused No.3. We find from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that there is no coherence in the evidence of these witnesses about the complicity of accused No.3 and as to the actual overt acts by accused No.3. Even the evidence of PW3 who is stated to be an eye -witness is not consistent with the evidence of PW2 who is the injured eyewitness.