Point of Law : The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction, or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2014 rendered by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur (for short, 'the trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504, and 506 r/w Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant/State seeking the intervention of this Court on various grounds urged in this appeal and thereby seeks to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prays to allow the appeal and to convict the respondents/accused for the aforesaid offences.

2. Heard Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, and perused the entire material available on record.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under;

It transpires from the prosecution case that, accused No.1-Ningappa S/o Amarappa Balabatti was suspected that P.W.1-Yallaling was having illegal intimacy with his wife. In this background on 28.11.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. when P.W.1-Yallaling Hulagappa Biradar, P.W.2-Mallappa Handral, P.W.-3-Shankrappa, and P.W-4-Mallamma were passing through the land of one Gurubhimarao Hanamantraya Kulkarni situated at Advi Hulagbal village, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the murder of Yallalinga, came armed with deadly weapons viz., axe, sticks and stones and accused No.2 assaulted P.W.2-Mallappa on his right foot with the stick. Accused No.1 assaulted with an axe on the head, left leg, trunk, face, and other parts of the body of P.W.1 with an intent to commit his murder. When C.W.9-Shankreppa came to the rescue, accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted him with an axe and stick, and accused No.5 assaulted C.W.10-Mallamma with a stone on her thumb and abused them in filthy language and also extended life threat to the complainant-Hanamanth Handral who is examined as P.W.5.

Based upon the complaint, the case in Crime No.175/2012 is registered by Talikoti P.S. for the aforesaid offences.

4. After registration of the case, the investigating officer, after investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal court.

5. After receipt of the charge sheet, the committal Court passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by supplying the charge sheet and other materials, and the case is committed to Sessions Court which culminated into the registration of in S.C.No.125/2013.

6. After committal of the case, the trial court heard the arguments of both the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to the framing of charges and since there were grounds to proceed against the accused, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked 12 documents at Exs.P.1 to 12 and got marked 9 material objects as M.Os.1 to 9.

8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution witnesses.

9. After the recording of the 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused were called upon to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused did not come forward to lead any defence evidence.

10. After the closure of the evidence of both sides, and hearing the counsel appearing for the State and the accused, on appreciation of the evidence the trial court rendered acquittal judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

11. It is contended by learned Addl. State