Point of Law: Section 357A of the Code is extracted here Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.

JUDGMENT :

The complainant has filed this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C. No. 155/2012 dated 22.06.2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar whereunder the respondent Nos. 2 to 15/accused Nos. 1 to 14 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 144, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts in brief are that there was a quarrel between the complainant and the accused. The accused had threatened the complainant to leave the village. On 18.08.2012 at 08.00 pm, when the complainant after having meals was talking in his house with his wife, mother, children, mother-in-law – Smt. Byamaa and sister – Smt. Reddamma, all the accused trespassed in to his house by abusing him in filthy language as `boli magane’ on the ground that inspite of directions given to him, he did not leave the village and threatened him and his family members. The accused were possessing knives, clubs etc., and he was assaulted by hands and was also kicked. When his sister Smt. Reddamma tried to intervene, she and his wife were assaulted and apprehending threat to his life, when he came out of the house, the accused chased him and when his sister Smt. Reddamma came out and intervened, at that time the accused Nos. 4 and 11 caught hold of her and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 10 stabbed on her chest with knives 3 to 4 times and as a result, she collapsed at the spot. When the villagers started gathering there on hearing their cries, the accused ran away from the spot. Immediately, the complainant with the assistance of others shifted Smt. Reddamma to Government Hospital, Mulbagal where the Doctor had declared that she was brought dead. Thereafter, the complainant went to Nangali Police Station and lodged a complaint in this regard. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer undertook investigation. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the accused. The charge for offence under Sections 144, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC came to be framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all 24 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.24 and got marked 48 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48 and 18 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.18. The statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have denied the incriminating evidence against them. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on both the sides, formulated points for consideration and on appreciation of the evidence has acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 15 – accused Nos. 1 to 14 of the charges leveled against them. The said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant in the present appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri. S.B. Pavin, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned Additional SPP for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Srinath B.V. for Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 15 – accused Nos. 1 to 14.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Sessions Judge has committed material illegality and irregularity in acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 – accused Nos. 1 to 14 and the impugned judgment is illegal, contrary to the material evidence in the case. The trial Court has erred in holding that the eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.20 – Smt. Gowramma -mother of the deceased has given evidence with regard to the incident and murder of Smt. Reddamma by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and others and she was treated hostile only on the point of recording of her statement. P.Ws.3 to 6, 17 and 18, who are the eye witnesses, have turned hostile will not affect the case of the prosecution. The Court below has erred in observing that in the cross-examination P.W.21 and P.W.22 have never asserted that th