Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Accused 2 is reported to be dead on 12-4-2012. Certificate issued by Mysore City Corporation is on record. Therefore, appeal against accused 2 has abated. Consequently, the appeal is heard only against respondent 1.

The judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th July, 2011 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Court, Mangalore in S.C. No. 118 of 2008 is appealed against by the State. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted accused 1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused 1 and 2 entered the house of P.W. 2 when he was alone in his house; assaulted him with knife (M.O. 3), consequent upon which, P.W. 2 sustained grievous injuries; P.W. 3 raised hue and cry; after hearing such cries, P.W. 1 being wife of P.W. 2, who had gone to neighbouring house for attending the pooja, rushed to the scene of offence and saw both the accused committing crime. During the process, P.W. 2 also sustained certain simple injury. The incident has taken place at about 12.15 p.m. on 5-6-2008 in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

The first information came to be lodged by P.W. 1 (wife of the injured victim) as per Ex. P. 1 at about 1.30 p.m. on 5-6-2008 while the victim was taking treatment in Yenepoya Hospital, Mangalore. Complaint was registered in Crime No. 99 of 2008 of Barke Police Station, Dakshina Kannada for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. P.W. 14-Inspector of Police laid the charge-sheet.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits and five material objects. On behalf of the defence, one exhibit came to be marked. As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted both the accused.

4. Learned Government Pleader Sri Chetan Desai taking us through the material on record, more particularly, evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the medical evidence on record submits that the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting accused 1-respondent herein; the evidence of these witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable; there is no reason as to why P.W. 2 should be disbelieved, inasmuch as, he is injured eye-witness and that P.W. 2 knew accused 1; the house of accused 1 is situated just about one furlong away from the house of P.W. 2; the wife of accused 1 works as a maidservant in a neighbouring house of accused 1; thus according to Public Prosecutor, the evidence on record, more particularly, evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly proves the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, if not, under Section 307 of IPC.

Heard Sri Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae and Sri Nagesha Poojari, on behalf of Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Counsel, who had filed vakalath on behalf of respondent 1 and perused the records.

5. P.W. 1 is the complainant and also the injured. She is the wife of the injured P.W. 2.

P.W. 2 is the husband of P.W. 1. He has sustained the grievous injuries. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have supported the case of prosecution.

P.W. 3 is the son of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He came to the spot after hearing about the incident. He shifted the injured to the hospital.

P.W. 4 is the witness for the spot mahazar (Ex. P. 4).

P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the mahazar witnesses to Exs. P. 5 to P. 7. However, they have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

P.W. 7 is the doctor. He treated P.W. 2 and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P. 8. He has also treated P.W. 1 and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P. 9. He has deposed that metacarpal bone of P.W. 2 was fractured.

P.W. 8 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 3) under which the clothes of the injured (M.Os. 1 and 2) were seized.

P.W. 9 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 2). He has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Under Ex. P. 2, the knife and the shirt of the accused (M.Os. 3 and 4) were seized.

P