1. Aggrieved by the order of the acquittal dated 24.09.2011 in S.C.No.50/2003 passed by the FTC Chikkaballapura, State has preferred this appeal. The said case-arises out of Crime No.177/2002 of Chikkaballapur Rural Police Station. The Chikkaballapur Police charge sheeted the accused in the said case for the offences punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint P.W.1 as per Ex.P1.

2. The gist of the said complaint is as follows:

That there was ill will between family of himself and accused family in respect of the claim of Honge tree situated on the bund of their land. On 22.08.2002 at 12.00 noon, the accused were cutting the said tree. When himself and injured questioned that, accused forming unlawful assembly of themselves armed with chopper and club assaulted himself, his mother Rangamma, brother-in-law Ashwathappa and brother Ramesh with choppers, clubs and axe and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.4Muniyamma splashed chilly powder into the eyes and others assaulted. Accused Gangappa Balappa and Ashawathnarayan pelted stones to the complainant party. On seeing the assault Venkatesh and Ramakrishnappa rescued the injured. The accused dropped the weapons there only and sped away. The injured are shifted to the Chikkaballapur Government hospital.

3. On conducting investigation, the Chikkaballapur Police filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 7 alone and dropped other 3 accused namely, Muniyamma, Narasimha and Balappa named in FIR. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court on hearing the parties framed the charges for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149 of IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, the trial is conducted.

4. In support of it’s case the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and MOs.1 to 10. The trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. However they filed defence statement along with 3 documents contending that in respect of the same incident a counter case was registered against complainant party in C.C.No.496/2002 and on trial in the said case complainant party are acquitted. The trial court after hearing the parties by impugned Judgment acquitted accused on the following grounds:

(i) The chilly powder theory stated by the prosecution is not established as the said chilly powder traces were not found at the spot and doctor does not speak about the presence of the same on the body of the injured.

(ii) P.W.5 and P.W.6 are not eye witnesses to the incident and they are related to P.W.1 to P.W.3. Witnesses are unable to specify which of the assailant assaulted the victims with which of the weapons. There are material contradictions in the weapons spoken by witnesses and the one revealed before the doctor.

(iii) Genesis of the offence is suppressed. The prosecution has failed to establish that victims have suffered grievous injuries.

(iv) The blood stained clothes of the victims are not seized.

(v) There is variation between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the doctor P.W.4 regarding the condition of the injured.

(vi) The witnesses who escorted the injured to the hospital are not examined. Therefore appellants-accused are entitled to the benefit of bail.

5. Sri Vijay Kumar Majige, learned Additional S.P.P. in his arguments reiterating the grounds of the appeal seeks to assail the impugned order of acquittal on the following grounds:

i. P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the injured eye witnesses and there is no reasons to disbelieve their evidence.

ii. The trial court has committed error in disbelieving the evidence of the injured witnesses.

iii. The trial court committed error in discarding the evidence of P.W.5 and PW.6, PW.9 only on the ground that they are the relatives. There are no reasons for P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 & P.