STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. LAGAMMAPPA MUTTEPPA DUMMANAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondents who were accused of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity). The facts as stated by the prosecution were as follows:

(3.) On a close consideration of the arguments canvassed by the learned State Public Prosecutor and on an examination of the record, it is seen that as recorded by the Trial court, there were two incidents in view of the evidence of the prosecution. PW-1 to 3 and PW-5 had tendered evidence about the assault caused by Accused No.1 with a sickle upon the complainant. However, the court has rightly found that the evidence of these witnesses, namely PW-1 to 3 and PW-5 were inconsistent as to the place of the incident and about Accused No.1 having assaulted the complainant. The evidence of PW-2 is totally in contradiction to the evidence of PW-1, 3 and 5 insofar as the accused having run away along with the weapon with which he had caused injury to the complainant, while the others had sought that it had been thrown at the spot after causing injuries to the complainant. There is inconsistency insofar as the motive alleged that Accused No.1 was seeking to avenge an earlier incident and further, PW-1 and 2 had admitted in the course of their evidence that there was no ill-will to their knowledge between Accused No.1 and the complainant. There was also no evidence tendered by the said witnesses as to any relationship or the common bond between Accused Nos.1 and 8 and there were three independent witnesses, namely CW-9, 10 and 11 who curiously have not been examined though they were cited as eye-witnesses. Therefore, under such glaring circumstances, the court has held that the primary witnesses, namely PW-1, 2, 3 and PW-5 have not supported the case of the prosecution and hence could not be readily accepted as establishing the case of the prosecution.