MAHADEVAIAH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -IV Mysore in S.C. No. 174/2005.

(2.) THE appellants challenged the judgment of the trial Court on the grounds that it is against law, procedure, facts and probabilities of the case. The Court below erred in believing the uncorroborated version of prosecution witnesses. There is an apparent error committed by the Court below in overlooking the major discrepancies occurred in the evidence of witnesses, which disprove the prosecution case and against the appellants or at least it is doubtful. Learned Trial Judge has failed to understand the ingredient of Section 324 of IPC and wrongly came to the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to hold that appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The learned Trial Judge ought to have acquitted the appellants since prosecution has failed to prove the origin of the case, so also the motive. It is a case and counter -case. Appellants in this case are witnesses in S.C. No. 169/2003, where PWs -1 and 3 herein and other persons are accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Due to the assault made by the accused in the said case appellant No. 2 herein became mentally unsound person, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the same. Whole evidence has been wrongly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge which caused miscarriage of justice. The sentence imposed is too harsh. Hence, sought to allow the appeal and to acquit the accused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that appellant No. 2 suffered grievous injuries and appellant No. 1 has also suffered injuries. PWs -1 to 4 are the eye -witnesses. He has also submitted that no finding is recorded as to which party is the aggressor. He has further submitted that though it is the prosecution case that accused assaulted the injured with reaper patti, same was not produced before the Court. Even with regards to wicket, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Spot is not proved with cogent evidence and there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Injuries on appellant No. 2 are not explained by the prosecution. Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be provided to the accused. He has also submitted that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, submitted to allow the appeal and to set -aside the judgment and order under appeal.