AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor. The present appeal is by the State questioning the acquittal of the accused, in the following circumstances: It was the case of the prosecution that on 16.07.2004 at about 1.30 p.m., when PW-2, the complainant was on his way to his garden land situated at Doregalahatti, the accused with a common intention to cause hurt, had picked up a quarrel with him in regard to a land dispute that was on between them. It is pursuant to which Accused No. 1 is said to have assaulted the complainant on the right side of his head with a "bandigusi" and Accused No. 2 had also assaulted with a similar weapon on his head while Accused No. 3 had assaulted him on his back and Accused No. 4 on his right forearm with identical weapons and also threatened to kill him and therefore, it was alleged on the basis of the said complaint that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It is thereafter proceedings having been taken and the respondents having faced trial, the court below while addressing the evidence tendered at the trial, has opined that PWs 3, 4 and 6 who were the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident, did not evoke the confidence of the court since they were all related to PW-2 and the evidence of PW-2 was to the effect that none was present except the accused at the time the incident had taken place, whereas it was inconsistently stated by the witnesses that they were very much present when the assault took place. It is this glaring circumstance which the Trial Court has taken note of in holding that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges and to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and has accordingly acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
Though the learned State Public Prosecutor has made a serious effort to sustain the case of the prosecution, it is evident from the very statements that have been extracted in the course of the judgment by the Trial Court that the complainant himself has not stated the sequence of events consistently, with the statements made by the alleged eye-witnesses. This glaring circumstance cannot be explained. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.