NOORJAHAN FAKRUDDIN JAMADAR Vs. MAIMUM CHANDSAB KILLEDAR; RAJIYA MEHAMOOD KILLEDAR; HASANSAB KILLEDAR; ASIF MEHAMOOD KILLEDAR; MEENAZ MEHAMOOD KILLEDAR; STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the complainant is directed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 03.10.2009 passed by the IV JMFC Court, Belgaum in C.C. No.747/2003.

(2.) On a complaint filed by the appellant, the respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Ss.143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504 read with S.149 of IPC. It was alleged that, on 23.06.2001, in front of the house of the complainant, situated at Kali Ambrai, Belgaum, the accused themselves formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted her and the same was noticed by a number of people assembled on the spot. It was stated that the complainant was sent to the hospital and a panchanama was drawn by the police. Cognizance of the offences was taken based on the evidence adduced before charge. Summons having been issued, the accused persons appeared and after getting enlarged on bail, pleaded not guilty to the accusation when put to them and claimed to be tried. During trial, the complainant got herself examined as PW-1 and examined two witnesses as PWs 2 and 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. Accused were examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence in its totality, found on facts, that the complainant has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused committed any offence. The Trial Court also found that the allegations made in the complaint were contradicted in the evidence and vide Judgment dated 03.10.2009 held that no case has been made out against the accused and acquitted them.

(3.) Sri J.S. Shetty, learned advocate contended that the Trial Court has committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence on record and it has erred in holding that the complainant has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record being credible, the judgment of acquittal passed is perverse and hence, interference is called for.