STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAM RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the accused-respondent.

(2.) The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused in the following circumstances. It was the case of the prosecution that on 3rd September 2005 at about 10.30 a.m., goats belonging to the complainant had entered the land of accused No.3-Kashinath and it transpires that Kashinath and his son pelted stones on the goats to drive them away. The complainant and his brother being conscious of the circumstance had gone there to bring their goats back from the land of accused No.3. At that point of time, accused No.1 to 4 are said to have attacked them with deadly weapons and while abusing them in foul language and accused No.4-Kamala Bai had caught hold of the complainants brother; accused No.1 assaulted his brother Manaji with a sword on his left ear and caused grievous injuries; and Jija Bai who tried to separate the quarrelling persons was sought to be assaulted with the sword on her neck by accused No.1. When she tried to protect herself with her hand she had sustained injury on three fingers of her left hand; Sanju Chauhan was said to have been assaulted by accused No.2 with a stick on his head causing injuries and when the complainant tried to intervene, she was also assaulted on her right elbow and injuries had been caused. It is in this background that on the complaint the Bhalki Police had registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860, and the charge sheet was accordingly filed. The Magistrate after taking cognizance had registered the case and subsequently committed the case to the Sessions Court and charges having been framed, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had then examined ten witnesses and marked several exhibits and material objects on the basis of which the Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The Court below answered the points in the negative. After having addressed the evidence of each witness, it is found by the Court below that the case of the Prosecution that accused No.1 had assaulted with a sword on the head of PW4-brother of the complainant and tried to assault PW6-mother of the complainant the sword and that she had sustained injuries in her back when she tried to protect herself and this sequence is related by PWs.1, 4 to 6 who have asserted that the said acts of the accused No.1, consistently. PW.7 has also supported the case of the prosecution and he has asserted that PW6 sustained injuries on her left-hand fingers. PW8, however, had stated that PW6 had sustained injuries, but did not state as to on which hand she had sustained injuries. As per Exhibit P6, injuries sustained by PW6 was on left hand fingers, but PW9-the Doctor, who has tendered evidence in support of the injuries caused, has stated that there was a lacerated wound over the right-index, middle and ring fingers and that they were simple in nature. Therefore, going through the evidence of injured witnesses and the other witnesses, all of whom have stated that the injuries were caused to her left hand fingers, but, the medical evidence being contrary, it was found to be a material contradiction which did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, insofar as accused No.2 having allegedly assaulted PW5 on his head with a stick, the complainant who was examined as PW3 had narrated that accused No.2 had indeed assaulted PW5 on the middle portion of his head. But the complainant did not reiterate the same in his evidence that on the date of incident accused No.2 had assaulted PW5 with a stick on his head. Manaji-PW4 and the injured PW5 had in their evidence claimed that accused No.2 had assaulted PW5 with a stick on his head. But, PW7 an eyewitness, had not stated in his evidence that he had seen accused No.2 assaulting PW5 with a stick on his head. Further, PW9 the medical practitioner has stated that the complainant had sustained contusions over the left temporal, whereas, according to the complainant PW5 had sustained injuries on the middle portion of his head and PW5 himself had not specifically stated as to which portion of the head he had sustained injuries. PWs.4 and 6 also did not state as to which portion on the head PW5 had sustained injuries. Therefore, the evidence of the medical practitioner was not consistent with the allegation that PW5 was injured on the middle portion of his head and it was not supported by the other witnesses who have been examined in support of the allegation. It is in this fashion that the court below had found that the charges could not be sustained against the said accused.