Point of Law : There is no perversity, absurdity or illegality committed by the trial Court in arriving at the conclusion and rendering acquittal judgment and therefore, the same does not call for interference in this appeal. [Para 27]

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C.No.137/2013 dated 06.04.2016 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under sections 143, 504, 324, 506, 307, 427 read with 149 of IPC, 1860. Whereas in this appeal, the appellant/State is seeking to consider the grounds urged in the appeal and consequently, set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the respondents/accused for the offences alleged against them.

2. Heard learned HCGP Shri Abhijith K.S. for the appellant/State and so also learned counsel Shri N. Srinivas for respondents/accused. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.137/2013 dated 06.04.2016.

3. The factual matrix of this appeal are as under:-

It has transpired in the case of the prosecution that, on 20.03.2011, at around 12.00 noon, at Jayanthi Restaurant situated near Kumbarahalli gate, wherein the accused, being the respondents in this appeal, formed an unlawful assembly and came to the Daba along with whisky bottles and asked for glasses for the purpose of consuming the liquor and as the same was refused by the complainant/CW.1, the accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant and also workers of that restaurant and whereby accused No.1 assaulted CW.1 – K.V. Jayaram with stone on his left thigh and caused him hurt and also extended life threat to the employees of that restaurant and locked CW.1 to CW.3 in a room and tried to kill them by opening the gas cylinder pipe and lit fire, ransacked tables and chairs and caused damage to the front wind shield of Santro Car bearing No.KA.25.9494 which was parked in front of the said Daba / restaurant, causing loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

4. It is in pursuance of the act of the accused, on the basis of the complaint made by CW.1 – K.V. Jayaram, criminal law was set into motion by registering case in Crime No.94/2011 for the offences stated supra. Subsequent to registration of the crime by recording the FIR, the I.O. has conducted the investigation thoroughly and during investigation recorded the statement of the witnesses and also drew spot mahazar at Ex.P1 and thereafter laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal court. Subsequently, the committal court had passed the order as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C., relating to the case in C.C.No.542/2011. Accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Subsequently, the case in S.C.No.137/2013 has been registered and the accused have been secured for facing trial. The trial Court heard on charges on the part of the prosecution and also defence counsel. On the basis of the prima facie material, charges were framed against the accused for the offences under sections 143, 504, 324, 506, 307, 427 read with 149 of IPC, 1860. The charges were read over to the accused in the language known to them and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Plea of the accused was recorded separately. Subsequently, the prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting PW.1 to PW.7 to examination and also got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P5 and so also got marked M.Os.1 to 7.

5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for enabling them to rebut incriminating evidence / statement against them, whereby the accused have denied the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but no defence evidence has been let in by them as contemplated under section 233 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly it was recorded.

6. Subsequently, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel. The trial Court considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses inclusive of fulcrum of mahazar at Ex.P1 said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the panch