STATE Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th March 2011 passed by Fast Track Court, Bangalore City in S.C.No.1398/2010 is called in question in these appeals. Crl.A.No.1304/2008 is filed by the State and Crl.A.No.479/2011 is filed by the original complainant. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of acquittal, both these appeals are heard and disposed of.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of the incident i.e., on 24.12.2009, a cricket match between India and Srilanka was being broadcasted in the television. The Indian team won in the said match; thus in order to celebrate such victory, the complainant Ramesh(PW -3) burst crackers in front of his house at 10.15 p.m. on 24.12.2009. The house of accused No.1 is nearby the house of complainant -PW -3. Accused No.1 is a Christian, whereas the complainant is a Hindu. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 came to the spot wherein crackers were being burst by PW -3 and objected for such bursting; at that point of time, accused No.1 had consumed liquor; Christians residing in the locality had installed the idol of Jesus in a shed which was situated about 100 ft away from the scene of offence; Accused No.1 questioned PW -3 -complainant as to why he is bursting the crackers and in that regard a quarrel ensued between the two; accused No.1 fisted on the face of the complainant, consequent upon which, the nose of the complainant started bleeding. Thereafter, accused No.1 went to his house and brought a chopper and assaulted on the head of the complainant, consequent upon which, the complainant sustained certain injury on his head; accused No.1 was about to assault the complainant once again and at that time, PW -4 intervened and in order to prohibit accused No.1 from assaulting, he laid his hand; however, accused No.1 assaulted on the forehand of PW -4, consequent upon which, PW -4 sustained butterfly type fracture( chopped fracture of right ulna). PW -3 and 4 were shifted to the hospital and they were treated. PW -4 was subjected to operation.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses and marked seven documents and two material objects. On behalf of the defence, no documents were marked. As aforementioned, the trial Court acquitted the accused.