( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. The State being aggrieved by the judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in S. C. 3/1988 in acquitting the respondents-accused of the offences under Section 143, 148, 302 read with 149 or 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 324 read with 149 or 324 read with 34 and 326 read with 149 or 326 read with 34 IPC has preferred this appeal against acquittal.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 9. 30 p. m. on 21-8-1987 and armed with deadly weapons assaulted Chikkavenkata and committed his murder. The accused caused injuries to P. Ws. 1 to 3, 6, 7 and 8 in the scuffle. The prosecution case further is that the accused attempted to put up a shed in the land in Survey No. 111/1 of Yaladahalli village (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed land") and when the deceased party came and objected to the accused putting up the shed it is alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased and other witnesses. The Trial Court acquitted the accused on various grounds. None of the eye-witnesses who are all closely related to each other speak about the injuries sustained by A-1 to A-3. However, P. W. 8 who is an independent witness had admitted that the accused were also injured in the fight.

( 3 ) BEFORE we deal with the injuries on the accused it is relevant to refer to the injuries on the deceased. P. W. 27 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He noticed in all five injuries on the deceased. Two injuries were incised in nature on the right third inter-costal space and also on the left lateral side of clavicle acromial. The doctor gave the opinion that death was due to the injury to the vital organ. The post-mortem report is marked as Ex. P-25. P. W. 1 gave the complaint which is at Ex. P-1.

( 4 ) AT this stage it would be convenient to refer to the injuries sustained by the accused. P. W. 27 is the doctor who examined A-2 immediately after the occurrence. According to P. W. 27 A-2 sustained a lacerated wound on the middle of the forehead. According to A-2 it is alleged that he was assaulted by the complainant and other witnesses. Ex. D-4 is the wound certificate of A-2.

( 5 ) P. W. 27 also speaks about injuries on A-3. The doctor noticed the incised woud in the right side of the occipital region. Ex. D-5 is the wound certificate with respect to A-3. A-1 also was injured in the occurrence. Ex. D-6 is the wound certificate with respect to A-1. The doctor P. W. 27 stated that he noticed a lacerated wound on the occipital region and cut injury on the right angle of mandible. In this case, admittedly, none of the eye-witnesses who are closely related to the deceased admit about any injury to the accused.

( 6 ) P. W. 3 is the Investigating Officer. He has specifically stated that he saw accused No. 1 having been admitted in the hospital and being treated in the same hospital where the prosecution witnesses were also admitted. P. W. 3, however, states that he did not verify from A-1 as to how he sustained the injury.

( 7 ) WE have in this case the wound certificates Exs. D-4 to D-6 with respect to the injuries sustained by A-1 to A-3. These injuries cannot be said to be minor and superficial which do not require any sort of explanation. They are lacerated wounds on the vital parts of the body. These injuries which had not been explained by the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of this case would indicate that the genesis of the case has been suppressed.

( 8 ) WITH regard to the "disputed land" there is ample material to show that the land in question where the occurrence took place belonged to A-1. A-1 purchased the land under a sale deed Ex. P-2, dated 20-12-1985. It was argued on behalf of the State that the same land was subsequently purchased by P. W. 2. The Trial Court disbelieved the documents subsequently created to show

Click Here to Read the rest of this document