JUDGMENT :

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ballari sitting at Hosapete in S.C. No. 5016/2015. The respondent being the accused in the said case faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is based on a report made by one Rama Naik-PW1 about the incident that took place on 24.06.2014. Ex. P.1 is the report of PW1. He reported to the Police that about four years prior to 24.06.2014, his father entered into an agreement with the accused for purchasing two acres of land in Sy. No. 421 of his village for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- per acre and paid advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- at that time. He undertook to pay balance amount at the time of registration of the sale deed. Later on the accused further received Rs. 25,000/- from his father. In the meantime the accused was sent to jail in connection with a criminal case and therefore he and his father took possession of the said land and started cultivating it. After the accused came out of jail, he demanded the accused to execute the sale deed, but he did not take interest in it. About three days prior to 24.06.2014, he sowed pearl millet in the land. PW1 came to know that at about 6 p.m. the accused had gone to the land and destroyed the entire sowing. At about 8 a.m. on 24.06.2014, he and his father questioned the accused near Gangabai hotel as to why he had destroyed the entire sowing. At that time the accused is said to have pushed his father down; when he and his mother interfered for the rescue of his father, the accused threatened to kill them and then stabbed his mother-Savitribai PW6 on her abdomen portion which resulted in the intestine oozing out. Immediately the injured was shifted to hospital. PW1 later on went to Police Station at about 12.30 p.m. to report about the incident. The Police held investigation and charge-sheeted the accused.

3. The trial Court charged the accused for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506 and 307 of IPC. Assessing the evidence of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard arguments of Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri. Srinand A Pachhapure, Advocate for the accused-respondent.

5. Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor has raised contentions that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused just by observing that there exists a civil dispute between the parties and that all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are related and thereby interested. On perusal of the oral testimonies of PW1, PW5, PW6, PW9 and PW12, it is not possible to infer that a civil dispute existed between the parties. Though there came into existence of agreement of sale as evidenced by PW2, no suit was preferred by none of the material witnesses so as to say that there was a civil dispute between the parties. Rather PW1, PW5 and PW6 have consistently spoken about the incident that took place on 24.06.2014. They have not been discredited in the cross-examination.

6. PW5 is an injured witness. She has given full account of injuries sustained by her, and her testimony finds further corroboration from PW8, the Doctor who examined her at the initial stage. PW9 is an eyewitness. The trial Court has failed to notice that he too has partly supported the prosecution though he was treated hostile.

7. PW12 might not have supported the prosecution, but considering the evidence of PW1, 5 and 6 and as also part of evidence of PW9, it is possible to infer that the incident as disclosed in Ex. P.1 did take place. The nature of the injuries sustained by PW5 is grievous in nature. The injury was on the vital part of the body and for all these reasons, the trial Court should have convi