Interference with acquittal is necessary if the trial court's findings on the credibility of evidence are wrong, and the nature of injuries and absence of provocation are crucial in determining liability under Sec. 302, IPC.

( 1 ) THE State of Karnataka has assaulted the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Sessions Case No. 115 /1998. The prosecution had alleged that the accused who is the husband had assaulted the deceased wife Muttawwa in front of his hut on 24-3-1998 at about 5 PM with a sickle and stone. The assault was one of considerable seriousness and as a result of the same, Muttawwa died on the spot. The incident in question was witnessed by PWs. 1 and 2. P. W. 1 Mahadeva is the son and P. W. 2. Rukmavva is the daughter who at the relevant time was aged about 15 years. The apparent reason for the assault was because the accused suspected the fidelity of the wife and he was harboring the suspicion that Muttawwa was carrying on a love affair with one Ningappa Appanna Jagadal who is P. W. 9. The assault on Muttawwa was rather savage in so far as the postmortem notes indicate that the accused had not only assaulted her but that he had virtually battered and bashed up her face with the stone. The incident was reported to the police, the accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation he was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302, IPC. At the trial, the evidence virtually narrowed down to the depositions of P. Ws. 1 and 2, namely, the son Mahadeva and the daughter Rukmavva. The learned trial Judge took note of the fact that P. W. 2 was a child witness and furthermore that P. W. 1 the son, in the view of the learned trial Judge had deposed on the basis of information gathered from P. W. 2 and not on the basis of his own knowledge. The reason for this was because the learned trial Judge held that Mahadeva had come to the scene of offence after the actual incident took place and that the report of what had happened had been relayed to him by the sister. The learned trial Judge assessed the evidence of Rukmavva and came to the conclusion that it is not of a sufficient caliber that would instill the confidence in the court to the extent that a Court base the conviction on the sole testimony of P. W. 2. The supportive evidence in this case establishes that the deceased met with a homicidal death but as far as fixing of the liability is concerned, if the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is unacceptable then a conviction would be unsustainable. It is for this reason that the learned trial Judge recorded an order of acquittal against the accused. The State has preferred the present appeal assauling the correctness of the order acquitting the accused.

( 2 ) THE accused did not engage any advocate before the trial Court and was afforded State assistance. After service of the notice in this appeal the accused has not engaged any lawyer of his choice and we have therefore appointed learned Advocate Sri G. A. Chandrashekar to appear as amicus curiae. The learned SPP has very ably argued the appeal on behalf of the State and we need to record our equal appreciation for the efforts put in by the learned advocate Sri Chandrashekar who has represented the respondent-accused and who has studied the case well and advanced his submission supporting the order of acquittal.

( 3 ) THE main submission canvassed by the learned SPP is to the effect that this is a case in which the two witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution P. Ws. 1 and 2, are none other than the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased. Secondly, what is pointed out is that both of them were residing with the parents and are not strangers or passersby or even neighbours for that matter. The submission is that their presence is perfectly natural and normal and that consequently the learned trial Judge was in error in having doubted their presence at the scene of offence. The learned SPP has demonstrated to us from the depositions that the defence did try to establish that Rukmavva was not present when the incident took place, that she had only seen the dead body and that only because of