The evidence of injured witnesses is crucial and can be the basis for conviction, but intent to kill must be established for serious charges like attempted murder under Section 307.

JUDGMENT

DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.

The Original Complainant has filed this appeal under Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the judgment of acquittal dtd. 5/7/2017, passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court') in S.C.No.164/2014, acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences punishable under Ss. 504, 324 and 307 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the IPC').

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, in connection with drawing a separate water pipeline to the house of accused No.1 from a bore-well tank built for the common use of all the villagers of Gandlahalli which had taken place on 1/12/2013, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention to assault and kill PWs-1 to 3, assaulted PWs-1 to 3 with two surgical blades and two clubs, on 2/12/2013 at 9.30 p.m., in front of Shri Chandramouleshwara Tempe situated at Gandlahalli Village within the limits of complainant police station and in the said process, also abused PWs-1 to 3 in filthy language and inflicted injuries upon them and thereby have committed offences punishable under Ss. 504, 324 and 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

3. After perusing the materials placed before it and hearing both side, the Sessions Judge's Court framed charges against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Ss. 504, 324 and 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Since the accused Nos.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused Nos.1 to 4, the prosecution got examined in all sixteen (16) witnesses as PW-1 to PW-16, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P1 to P18 and got produced Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-5. From the accused Nos.1 to 4 side, ten (10) documents were got marked as Exs.D1 to D10.

4. After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge's Court, by its judgment dtd. 5/7/2017, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences punishable under Ss. 504, 324 and 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant- original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant-original complainant is represented by the learned counsel and respondent Nos.1 to 4/accused Nos.1 to 4 are being represented by their learned counsel and complainant/respondent No.5 is being represented by the High Court Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents (accused) and the learned High Court Government Pleader are physically appearing in the Court.

6. The Sessions Judge's Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

7. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the Sessions Judge's Court records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the learned Sessions Judge's Court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief arguments submitted that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-12. The accused had come prepared and armed with blades to kill PWs-1 to 3. Thus, their intention to take away the life of PWs-1 to 3 is established. He further submitted that evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 who are the eye- witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and go to show that they have not only witnessed the incident but also have shifted the injured to the hospital by rescuing them from the attack and assault of the accused. He further submitted that, evidence of PWs-1 to 3 who are the injured eye-witnesses is reliable and their evidence is sufficient to hold the accused as guilty of the alleged offences. However, the Sessions Judge's Court without appreciating the evi