( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an acquittal preferred by the State.

( 2 ) THE State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in S. C. No. 16/1992 dated 30-9-1997 in acquitting the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Sections 144 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149 and 324 r/w 149, IPC have preferred this appeal against the acquittal.

( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows : the accused are labourers residing at Kallukore village in Koppa Taluk. Accused No. 5 Sri Krishna has got a provision shop at Kallukore. On 6-10-1991, one day prior to the occurrence P. W. 16 went to purchase some Coffee Powder and other provisions. When P. W. 16 Sri Shauna was returning Accused-5 asked P. W. 16 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 200/ -. P. W. 16 replied that he owned only Rs. 60/- and on saying that P. W. 16 was walking back to his place. Accused-2, who was in the shop of accused No. 5 came behind and gave a blow with his hand on P. W. 16. This simple incident appears to be the motive for the occurrence.

( 4 ) ON the next day, on 7-8-1991 P. W. 16 informed this incident to P. W. 3 and P. W. 3 Sri Ithappa suggested that he would take care of the situation. On the following day i. e. on 8-10-1991 the deceased Chandu, P. W. 1, P. W. 8, P. W. 9, P. W. 10, P. W. 14 and P. W. 15 came to the shop of accused No. 5 for purchasing the provisions. Between 4. 30 and 5. 00 in the afternoon, some of the witnesses who were present questioned accused-5 with respect to the assault of P. W. 16. This led to a major quarrel between the two groups.

( 5 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that there were exchange of words between the two groups and in the commotion the accused assaulted P. W. 1, P. W. 8, P. W. 15, P. W. 3, P. W. 14 and P. W. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were armed with iron rods and clubs. Chandu, who is injured in the incident died in the Hospital. The other injured witnesses were shifted to Balehonnur Hospital for treatment.

( 6 ) P. W. 1 Sri Sundara, who was also assaulted by the accused, gave a complaint to the Police as per Ex. P1.

( 7 ) THERE are three vital aspects in this case which proved fatal to the prosecution. (1) One was that all the injured witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. (2) The injuries suffered by the accused were never explained by the prosecution. (3) Ex. P1 the complaint given by P. W. 1 in Crime No. 75/1991 at 7. 30 P. M. within half an hour. Accused No. 5 gave the counter-complaint against the prosecution party in Crime No. 76/1991 at 8. 00 P. M. and there was no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution as to what happened to the counter-complaint given by accused No. 5.

( 8 ) WE shall briefly deal with the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 in his evidence categorically states that there were exchange of words between two groups and P. W. 1 went to pacify them and accused 1 assaulted P. W. 1 on the head. Accused No. 5 R, Krishna also assaulted P. W. 1. P. W. 1 does not speak about for the overt-acts on the deceased. He merely states that the deceased died due to assault. He further states that he was treated by the Balehonnur Hospital and was sent to the Police Station and he gave an oral complaint which is marked before the Court as Ex. P-1. He was an inpatient at the Chickmanglur Hospital for one month. He, however, states later on that the deceased was assaulted by accused No. 3. He again slips-up by saying that he does not remember what weapons the accused used while assaulting the injured. In the cross-examination, P. W. 1 says that he did not tell the Police that accused No. 3 assaulted the deceased. Curiously, this witness says that when he was taken to the Police Station, he was not fully conscious and when he was examined by the Doctor, he told the Doctor that he did not know who assaulted him.

( 9 ) P. W. 2, who was an eye-witness, did not support the case of the prosecution and was treat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document