STATE Vs. SAKAMUDAPPA; SRINIVAS; NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 29.9.2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in S.C.No.60/2007 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 324, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is called in question in this appeal by the State.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that number of coconut trees were standing in the land bearing Survey No.315 of Gejjeappalli village belonging to PW.1 (injured); a coconut tree was burnt by third party for the purpose of collecting honey from the honey-bee, in order to get rid of bees from bee-hive; the family members of PW.1 were of the impression that the accused were responsible for setting fire to the coconut tree and in that regard, PW.2 - wife of PW.1 was scolding the accused and others standing in front of her house at about 10.30 a.m. on 29.4.2007; the accused came near PW.2 and started quarrelling with her; accused No.1 held the tuft of PW.2, dragged her and assaulted her with hands; since PW.2 raised hue and cry, PW.1 (husband of PW.2) rushed to the spot and intervened; being enraged, accused No.1 assaulted on the head of PW.1 with chopper - M.O.No.1; fortunately, accused No.1 did not lose his life because he had covered his head with towel during relevant point of time; however, PW.1 sustained bleeding grievous injury on his head; so also, PW.2 sustained certain simple injuries; immediately after the incident, PW.1 was shifted to Government Hospital at Bagepalli where he was treated by the Doctor - PW.7 for about half-an-hour; the said Doctor referred the patient (PW.1) to NIMHANS Hospital for higher treatment; accordingly, PW.1 was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he was taken treatment for some time. Ex.P3 is the medical certificate issued by PW.7 - Doctor, whereas Ex.P4 is marked through PW.7 - Doctor and the said document is the Photostat copy of the case sheet maintained by NIMHANS Hospital.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 8 witnesses and got marked 5 Exhibits and 4 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As mentioned supra, the Trial Court on evaluation of material on record acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt in their favour.