KAMPASARI Vs. PUTTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the complainant in Bench Case No. 6 of 1943 on the file of the Bench Court of Kollegal. The two accused there were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 each for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Kollegal acquitted the accused, and it its this order of acquittal that is sought to be revised.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that on the date of occurrence P.W. 5 along with others who were playing in the street raised a cloud of dust and the second accused who was passing along scolded the boy P.W. 5 and gave him a slap. His father who was sitting on a pial witnessed it, came and remonstrated. P.W. 1 and the second accused quarrelled with each other. Just then the first accused, the father of the second accused, and others came and there was an exchange of abusive language between P.W. 1 and the second accused and it is stated for the prosecution that the first accused beat P.W. 1 and also asked the second accused to bring seme-thing. The second accused brought an axe. But others intervened and they were dispersed.

(3.) Besides P. Ws. 1 and 5 three others P. Ws. 2 to 4 were examined. They are said to have come there sometime during the course of this incident. The first accused pleaded alibi and said that he was not present there at all and that the complaint was a result of ill-feelings between them and P.W. 1. The second accused also denied the offence. A number of witnesses were examined for the defence to prove the ill-feelings and also to prove that the first accused was not there. The Bench of Magistrates disbelieved the defence version, believed the evidence for the prosecution, found the accused guilty and sentenced them as stated above. The Bench also recorded notes of evidence. The appellate Magistrate after perusing the notes of evidence recorded by the Bench found that several points in the evidence were not taken into consideration by the Bench and came to the conclusion that the accused were not guilty. He also referred to the fact that the name of P. W, 4 was not stated in the 11 of witnesses in the complaint.