STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PARASHRAM KALLAPPA GHEVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. JAGANNATHAN, J. The main grievance of the State, a. gainst the order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, belgaum, is that the trial Court while acquitting respondents Nos. 1 and 2, committed an error in so far as the offence is concerned and instead of convicting them for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, the trial Court had convicted them under section 324 of IPC and further releasing the two accused persons under the Probation of Offenders act is also erroneous in law.

(2.) WE have heard learned High Court government Pleader, Sri P. M. Nawaz, appearing for the State as well as learned amicus Curiae, Sri Sharanappa Mattur, appearing for the respondents.

(3.) SINCE the area of controversy is within a narrow compass with regard to the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 324 of IPC instead of Section 326 of ipc, we deem it proper to discuss only this aspect of the matter since the respondents have been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. We also make a mention at this juncture that so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, the trial court has acquitted the said accused since no independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case and. even the presence of accused No. 3 is also not spoken by any of the witnesses and as such the focus will be only on the conviction of accused nos. 1 and 2 by the trial Court and their release under the P. O. Act.