ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2000, dated 04.07.2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

2. As per the prosecution, on 22.04.1997 at about 12.00 midnight, the accused/appellants-herein broke into the house of Basava Gaidgappa Basatti a resident of village Bochabai, Ramdurg, Karnataka. They were carrying weapons such as sickles, sticks and stones and assaulted the complainant on her head, shoulders, trunk and legs and on her left hand due to which she sustained multiple injuries. At that time, Sanadurgappa Uppar (PW-6), who was sleeping in the Hanamanth Temple, came and attempted to pacify the quarrel. The accused-appellants also assaulted (PW-6) and injured him on his face and eyes. Thereafter, the accused-appellants ran away from the spot, assuming that the complainant was dead. The next morning, the complainant and (PW-6) went to Belgaum Hospital for treatment and examination. They were discharged from the hospital on 08.05.1997.

3. The FIR was lodged only on 03.05.1997 when the Police Sub-inspector received information about the incident at 10.00 p.m., whereupon investigation commenced.

4. After the conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was duly filed against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code").

5. During the course of the trial, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The complainant was PW-1, and the Trial Court found her evidence full of inconsistencies and contradictions. PW-6 supported the case of the complainant. However, the Trial Court held that the testimony of PW-6 could not be relied upon as he worked for the complainant and was not an independent witness. PW-2 to PW-5 and PW-7 to PW-9 were panch witnesses who had turned hostile, and therefore their testimony were not relied upon by the Trial Court. The evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-12) was also not relied upon by the Trial Court for the lack of consistency with the case of the complainant. Upon meticulous consideration of the evidence of the prosecution, the material on record and the submissions made by the parties, the Trial Court held that the case against the accused-appellants could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused-appellants.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the State carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. Since the accused-appellants were unrepresented before the High Court, the Court had appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

7. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order has noticed that the delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant has occurred because she was in a helpless state and undergoing treatment for her injuries. The wound certificate of the complainant (Ex. P-8) disclosed that the hospital authorities were informed that the injuries on the complainant were caused due to assault, and therefore, that this was a medico-legal case. The High Court further held that it was the on the part of the hospital authorities to have intimated the police about the admission of a medico legal case, and the hospital authorities were negligent in informing the police of the same. Accordingly, the High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR could not be considered as fatal to prove the prosecution case.

8. Without going into details of the prosecution evidence, the High Court summarily concluded that the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Code, and sentenced the accused-appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.5,00