The main legal point established is the reliability of prosecution evidence, the impact of civil disputes on criminal cases, and the correct interpretation of relevant sections of the IPC in assault cases.

K. Natarajan, J.

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner State under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the J.M.F.C., Chintamani, in C.C.No.29/2005 dated 14.08.2006 and same was confirmed by the Fast Track Court II, Chintamani, in Crl.A.No.37/2007 dated 03.02.2010. Both the Courts below acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner State was the complainant and the respondents were accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 16.11.2004 at about 6 p.m., P.W.1 complainant - Mukthar Banu and her husband - P.W.2 - Kalid Ali went to their land bearing survey No.68/4 of Mohammadpur Village in Chintamani Taluk which was under dispute between the complainant and the respondents. When the accused persons had gone to the said land for cultivation, PW.2 obstructed for such cultivation, the accused quarreled with the PWs.1 and 2. At that time, accused No.1 assaulted P.W.2 with a club and caused simple and grievous injuries and the other accused persons fisted P.W.2 and caused bodily pain. After the incident, P.W.2 was shifted to the hospital and later P.W.1 filed a complaint to the Chintamani Rural Police and a case in Crime No. 141/2004 was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. The accused persons were arrested and released on bail. The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the offences and charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution examined totally 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8, got marked 5 documents as Exs.P.1 TO P.5 and 2 material objects as M.Os.1 and 2. After closing the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused in order to prove their defence, examined their father as D.W.1 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.D.1 and 2. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 from the charges. Being aggrieved by the same, the State, preferred an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Earlier it was filed before this Court, later it was withdrawn and transferred to the Fast Track Court, Chintamani, in Criminal Appeal No.37/2007. After hearing the arguments, the First Appellant Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal judgment passed by the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 03.02.2010. Hence, this revision petition filed by the State on various grounds.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 is stated by P.W.1, the eyewitnesses P.Ws.3 and 5 and even corroborated by medical evidence. The teeth of P.W.2 were missing in the incident, the same was spoken by the PW.2, but both the Courts below committed error in holding that the prosecution failed to prove missing of teeth. It is further contended that the learned Judges of the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record even though the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Though the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court gave much importance to the contradictions and omissions, which is natural when the witnesses were examined after long time of the incident, the injured evidence clearly corroborated with the medical evidence, but the trial Court acquitted the accused only based upon the civil dispute which is not correct. Therefore, he prays to allow the revision petition and to convict the accused/respondents.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents - accused contended that, initia