State of Karnataka vs Kristayya

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.

The State is in appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below.

The facts of the case are as follows: It is stated that on 29.01.2008 at about 2.00 a.m. at a distribution canal near Merched Cross on Raichur-Sindhanur road, the accused namely, the respondents herein, are alleged to have picked up a quarrel with CW-1 and insulted him with an intention to cause provocation and to breach public peace by abusing him in the following words:

VERNACULAR MATTER

Thereafter it is alleged that accused No. 1 assaulted the complainant with an iron rod on his head and face and caused injuries and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are said to have assaulted complainant with their hands and caused hurt. It is on the basis of a complaint, in this regard, that a case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused.

The Court having framed charges and the accused having pleaded not guilty, the prosecution tendered evidence of PW-1 to PW-7 and has got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On hearing arguments, the Court below has acquitted the respondents of the alleged offences. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The primary ground urged by the learned Government Pleader apart from other grounds raised in the appeal is that the Court below has clearly overlooked the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 which has been adequately corroborated by the medical practitioner who had treated the injured complainant and this has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and therefore the judgment of the Court below is erroneous and is opposed to the material available on record and in this regard the learned Government Pleader seeks to take this Court through the record to demonstrate the same.

However, it has to be kept in view that the incident has taken place at 2.00 a.m. when there was not much light in the area and therefore the very presence of the alleged eye-witness PW-2 cannot be readily accepted. This was especially so, as the Court below has found that PW-2 belonged to Bettadur village whereas it was shown in the complaint that he belonged to Kapgal village. This was apparently only in order to ensure that his presence at the spot could not be suspected, as Bettadur was far away from the spot, whereas Kapgal was closer and it was an attempt to tender the evidence of the said witness only to ensure that the case against the accused was made out. This improper act on the part of the prosecution has not evoked confidence of the trial Court and rightly so, in having suspected the veracity of the evidence of PW-2 on whose evidence alone the entire case of the prosecution was sought to be sustained.

Further the time of the incident is also incorrectly indicated as being 10.00 p.m. whereas the incident has taken place at 2.00 a.m. and further there was discrepancy as to the injuries described by the witnesses whereas the medical report indicated that there was a lacerated wound and the witness had alleged that the injuries caused were oozing blood and it was an incorrect and contradictory statement contrary to the material on record. Therefore, it is these and other inconsistencies which has made the trial Court strongly doubt the actual manner in which the incident may have taken place and when the prosecution was not able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the Court below having acquitted the accused cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.