Point of Law : Evidence let in by the prosecution has to be assessed carefully and cautiously and it should not be brushed aside. [Para 30]

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal the appellant / State is challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the I Addl.Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in S.C.No.86/2013 dated 11.01.2016 whereby accused were acquitted for the offences under Section 504, 324, 326, 307 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860. Whereas the appellant/State is seeking intervention by re-appreciation of the evidence and so also, revisiting of the impugned judgment of acquittal and consideration of the grounds as urged therein. Consequently, to set-aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused of the offences which they have been charged.

2. Heard learned HCGP for State and learned counsel Sri K.S. Ganesha for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Perused the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.86/2013.

3. The brief facts of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 20.05.2013 at around 6.30 p.m. PW.1 being the complainant was sitting in front his house, by the time accused Nos.1 to 4 abused him in filthy language and told them it is already rained and if anybody comes to the land, there will not be good signs. By saying so accused Nos.1 and 2 were abusing the complainant that the partition is not correct, and they have suffered some sort of injustice. In the meanwhile of that kind of exchange of words, altercation took in between them and accused No.1 assaulted PW.8 on his head part with iron rod. As a result he sustained some injuries. It is further transpired in the complaint that while PW.8 had come forwarded to pacify the incident, accused No.2 came and assaulted with means of chopper on his face saying that he would finish him. Since he went back during the assault, he sustained injuries on his nose and also on the ear. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of complaint by the complainant namely Puttaswamy who is examined as PW.1 and so also, being injured and based upon his complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR at Ex.P10. Subsequent to registration of the crime PW.14 being investigating officer took up the case for investigation and investigated the case in entirety and laid charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court.

4. Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet by the investigating officer, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the committal Magistrate by compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. relating to Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to committing the case to the Court of Sessions whereby the trial Court had secured the presence of accused for facing of trial and accordingly, the case in S.C.No.86/2013 has been registered and also assigned the said case. The trial Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor for State and the defense counsel for accused relating to framing of charge. On finding prima-face case in the charge sheet materials, charges were prepared and the same were read over to the accused in the language known to them and charges for the offence under Section 504, 324, 327, 307 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons. The accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused were recorded respectively.

5. Subsequent to framing of charge wherein the prosecution let in the evidence by subjecting to examination of PWs.1 to 14 and got several documents as per Ex.P1 to P11 and so also, M.Os.1 to 9. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution whereby the accused were subjected to examination as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appeared against them wherein the accused denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced. Accordingly, it was recorded separately. Subsequent to recording the incriminating statement as required under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. the accused were called upon to entering into any defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. But the accused did not come forward to