State vs Byra Reddy and Others

L. Narayanaswamy. J.

This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in special CC No. 159/2004 on the file of second Add). Sessions Judge at Kolar acquitting the Respondents-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) of 1989.

The case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.2004 at about 6.00PM CW.1 was going to Milk Dairy to supply milk. When he was in front of the house of accused, they abused him touching his caste. Accused No. 1 caught hold of the caller of CW. 1, accused No. 2 assaulted him with a club on his head, accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 with a stone on his back and all over his body and accused No. 3 fisted on his face. Thereafter all the accused went near the house of CW. 1 and pelted stones on his house. On the complaint of CW. 1 police registered the case and filed charge sheet.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as PW. 1 to PW-8 and got marked 7 documents. PW1 is the injured, PW2 is father of PW1, PW3 to 5 are the eyewitnesses. PW6 is a punch witness. PW7 is a Medical Officer, PW8 is an Investigation Officer who has conducted investigation in the case and filed charge sheet.

I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case papers.

Among the eyewitnesses PW 5 has not supported the prosecution. He was treated hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of P Ws. 1 to 4 is material to bring home the guilt of the accused. In his statement before police PW. 1 has stated that accused abused him touching his caste, accused No. 3 caught hold of his caller, accused No. 2 assaulted him with a club on his head, accused No. 1 assaulted him with a stone on his back, accused No. 4 assaulted him with stone on his back and other parts of the body. It is stated that accused No. 3 fisted on his face. In his evidence before court PW. 1 has stated that accused No. 3 caught hold of his collar and questioned him as to why he made gelada with his brother on the previous night and fisted on his face. Accused No. 2 came from the backside and assaulted with a club five times. Accused No. 1, 4 and 5 assaulted him with stones, he sustained injuries on his head. This evidence of PW1 corroborates his statement before police to some extent. However the evidence of PW2 who is the father of PW1 is of no help to the prosecution Has his evidence discloses that he has not seen the accused assaulting PW1.

PW3 has stated that accused No. 2 assaulted PW1 with a club 5-6 times on his head, accused No. 3 fisted on the face of PW1. Accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 assaulted PW1 with stones. Evidence of PW4 is also to the same effect.

Evidence of P Ws No. 1, 3 and 4 is that accused No. 2 assaulted PW.1 with a club on his head 4-5 times, that means. PW. 1 should have sustained 4-5 injuries on his head. It is also the evidence of these witnesses that accused No. 3 fisted on the face of PW.1. The Medical Officer PW.7 when he examined PW.1 at 8.00AM i.e. two hours after the incident has noticed only incised injury on the head contusions on the left and right ribs. No injury was noticed on the face. The opinion of the Doctor is that injury No. 1 could be caused due to assault with stone like M. Os 3 and 4. Injury Nos. 2, and 3 could be caused by an assault with clubs like M. Os 1 and 2. There is no evidence including the complainant to suggest that any one of the accused assaulted him with a stone on his head. Therefore, injury No. 1 found on the head of PW. 1 cannot be said that it is due to the assault by the accused. Even though P Ws 1, 3 and 4 have stated that accused No. 2 assaulted with a club on his head 4-5 times, no such injuries are found on the head of PW.1. No injury is found on the face of PW. 1. Neither PW 1 nor P Ws 4and 5 have stated that any of the accused assaulted PW.1 with clubs on his left and right ribs. Evidence of PW.7 totally contradicts the evidence of P Ws 1,3 and 5 with regard to the injuries sustained by PW. 1 due to assault. In that view of the matter the evidence of P Ws 1,3 and 4 does not inspire confidence so as to rely upon the same.

When the evidence of material witnesses does not inspire confidence, it is not safe to rely upon the said evidence to punish the accused for the offences alleged. It is the requirement that prosecution has not only duty to prove the guilt but it should be beyond reasonable doubt.

In the circumstances, the trial court is right in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The ingredients of offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) of 1989. Therefore, the trial court is justified in passing the impugned judgment and order calling for no interference by this Court. The trial court has properly considered the available material and has reached to right conclusions. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.