STATE BY MALLANDUR POLICE vs MANJUNATH & ORS

This appeal has been preferred by the State, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A. No.138 of 2015, reversing the judgment of conviction dated 03.09.2015, passed by the 2nd Additional

Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Chikkamagaluru in C.C. No.928 of 2012 and thereby, acquitting the accused-

respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections-341, 504, 323, 324, 326, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

There is a delay of 242 days in filing this appeal. Hence, the appellant-State has filed IA-1 of 2018, seeking to condone the delay in filing the

appeal.

We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor both on IA-1 of 2018 and on merits of the matter. Perused the impugned judgment.

The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

On 24.09.2012, at about 10-30 a.m, when the injured (PW.2) and his mother PW.1 were proceeding to their house, Accused Nos. 1 to 4, in

furtherance of their common intention, restrained the complainant, abused him in filthy language. Accused No.1 assaulted him with a sickle on his

left arm, Accused No.2 assaulted him below the left knee and accused Nos. 3 & 4 had beaten the complainant with hands.

In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10 and MOs. 1 to 4. PW.1 is the mother

of the complainant, PW.2 is the injured-complainant, PWs. 3 & 4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, PW.5 is the Doctor who treated the

injured, PWs. 6 & 7 are the circumstantial witnesses and PWs.8 to 11 are the police personnel who participated in the investigation. During their

examination-in-chief, PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 have not fully supported the case of the prosecution and hence, they have been treated as hostile and

subjected to crossexamination by the prosecutor. Even in their crossexamination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited, in support of the

prosecution case. Only PW.4, against whom, a criminal case was registered, based on the complaint lodged by the accused, supported the case of

the prosecution.

Despite the fact that the material prosecution witnesses including the injured-complainant have turned hostile, the Trial Court, based on the

medical evidence, convicted the accused-respondents herein for the charges levelled against them. However, on appeal, the First Appellate Court

reversed the said judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused for all the charges levelled against them.

On a careful scrutiny of the material on record, it is seen that the material witnesses PWs. 1 to 4, including the injured-complainant have not

supported the case of the prosecution and as such they have been treated as hostile. According to the case of the prosecution, on the date of

incident, PW.1, the mother of the injured (PW.2) was accompanying the injured. Whereas, in her evidence before the Court, she has stated that

she was not accompanying her son on the date and time of incident. She was unable to identify the sickle said to have been used by the accused to

assault PW.2. Even PW.2, the injured-complainant, in his examination-in-chief, has not specifically stated who has assaulted him with sickle and he

has improved the case of the prosecution by stating that the accused persons have thrown chilly powder to his eyes and assaulted him. Therefore,

he has been treated as hostile and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in his cross-examination, in support of prosecution case. Hence, there are

material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2. Apart from that, as could be seen from paragraph-9 of the judgment of

the trial Court, passed in CC. No.928/2012 and paragraph-16 of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No.136/2015, there

was a civil dispute between the parties and the same has been admitted by PW.2-injured complainant. It is settled principle that when there are

two views possible, one beneficial to the accused requires to be extended to the accused. The learned judge of the First Appellate Court, on a re-

appreciation of the material on record in a proper perspective, was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and

rightly acquitted the accused-respondents herein.

We are of the view that there is no error or perversity committed by the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence on record. The

reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court are just and proper. There is no perversity in the order. We find no good ground to interfere with the

well considered judgment of the First Appellate Court.

Since we have considered the appeal on merits, there is no reason to consider IA-1 of 2018 for delay. Therefore, IA-1 of 2018 is dismissed and

consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

The judgment of acquittal dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A. No.136 of 2015 is

affirmed.