JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.91/2013 dated 05.12.2015 acquitting Accused / Respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860. The State has filed this appeal challenging the said acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and seeking to convict respondent Nos.1 to 4 / accused for the offences for which they were charged, by considering the grounds urged in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned HCGP for State and so also the learned counsel Shri G.B. Sharath Gowda for respondents / accused. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court inclusive of the exhibited documents.

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

It transpires from the case of the prosecution that on 11.7.2012, PW-1 / complainant namely Pradeep S/o. T.N. Puttaswamy and PW-2 / Srinivasa, were travelling in a tempo at Garibi Site where tar was being newly laid under the Suvarna Grama Yojana Scheme. Since there was a break in the tar, PWs 1 and 2 are said to have fired at those workers who had done the said shabby work. The said fact was taken to the notice of Accused No.1 / Ramaraju. Hence, it is stated that on the previous day of the incident in the night, Accused No.1 / Ramaraju had abused in filthy language at those, who had complained about the shabby work in laying the tar and that the complainant and PW-2 having heard the same, had remained silent as it would lead to a scuffle. It is alleged that on 13.07.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., when PW-1 / complainant, PW-2 and CW-3 to 6 were talking with each other near the shop of Shankar, at that time, all the accused persons forming an assembly, had gone there and started abusing them in filthy language and obstructed the complainant. It is stated that Accused Nos.1 and 3 caught hold of PW-1 and dragged him to and fro by holding his shirt and that when PW-2 and others told the accused persons that they had intentionally come to quarrel with them, Accused No.2 had tried to assault PW-2 / Srinivas on his neck with a razor and that when PW-2 tried to escape, he was assaulted with razor on his cheek and that again Accused No.2 / Mutthuraju is said to have assaulted PW-2 / Srinivas with razor on his lip and near right eye and caused injuries, with an intention to murder Srinivas. It is stated that while they were running away from the spot to escape from the clutches of the accused persons, the said accused are said to have threatened PW-1, PW-2 and others with dire consequences. Thereafter, it is stated that CW-3 who is cited as a witness in the charge-sheet, had taken the injured Srinivasa / PW-2 on his motorcycle to the hospital for treatment and thereafter complaint was lodged against accused persons.

4. Based on the complaint filed by the complainant who was examined as PW-1, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR by one K.M. Nagaraj / PW-5 as per Exhibit P5, who was the Head Constable in the Rural Police Station, Mandya. PW-5 after having partly investigated the case, handed over the case file to C.W.10 i.e., P.S.I. of Rural Police Station, Mandya. It appears that C.W.10 having investigated the case, after recording the statement of witnesses and so also drawing the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and after securing the Wound Certificate, had laid the charge-sheet against the accused persons before the Committal Court for the offences reflected therein.

Subsequently, the Committal Court had passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. by following the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. relating to furnishing of the charge-sheeted materials and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for State and so also the defense counsel for the accused relating to framing of charge and having found