AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure
This revision is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondents for the charge under Sections 326 and 504 readwith Section 34 IPC on a trial held by the CJM, Shimoga.
The facts reveal that on 11.5.2004 at about 7.45 p.m. at Abbalagere Village, PW.2 Mohammed Sharief came to the Canteen in order to take a cap of tea and at that time, the accused is said to have picked up quarrel in respect of a dead hen and said to hove abused in filthy language. The accused are said to have caused assault with chopper and iron rod on PWs.2 and 3. A complaint of this incident was submitted as per Ex.P.S and during the investigation of the case. PW.s. 2 and 3 were examined by PW. 1 Dr. Manjunath, the spot mahazar Ex.P.5 was held and the statement of the witnesses were recorded. After collecting the injury certificates Exs.P.1 and P.2, a chargesheet came to be filed against the respondents herein for the aforesaid offences.
During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked the documents Exs.p.1 to P.5 and MOs.1 and 2. The statement of the respondents were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They took the defense of total denial. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and on appreciation of the material on record acquitted the respondents for the aforesaid charges and aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant has preferred this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the High Court Government Pleader.
The wound certificates produced at Exs.P.1 and P.2 and the evidence of PW.1 reveal that PWs.2 and 3 had sustained grievous and simple injuries. Infact, what is a grievous Injury as envisaged u/s 320 IPC has not been considered by the Trial Court. They do not appear to be a grievous injury. Any how, it is relevant to note that PWs.2 and 3 are the injured witnesses examined by the prosecution. The principles regarding appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses have not been considered by the Trial Court So, if the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court, it can took to the evidence of these witnesses and also consider the principles regarding the appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses and pass appropriate orders.
In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein the order of acquittal has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Trial Court to dispose of the case in accordance with law.
The revision petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall hear the Prosecutor and also the counsel for the accused and uninfluenced by the observations made above shall dispose of the case in accordance with law.
As the matter is of the year 2004, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order.