In acquittal appeals, if the trial court’s assessment of evidence is plausible, the appellate court will not interfere, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Rai K, J.

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2017 in Special Case No.1/2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’), whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’ for short).

2. The abridged facts of the case of prosecution is that, on 23.11.2010, at about 10:00 a.m., when the complainant (PW5) along with his family members were cutting paddy crop in their land bearing Sy.No.54 situated at Kesarolli village of Haliyal Taluk, the accused persons trespassed the said land by forming an unlawful assembly and abused the complainant and his family members by mentioning their caste and threatened them to leave the place or else they will do away their life. As such, PW5 lodged a complaint before the Haliyal Police on the same day i.e. on 23.11.2010 as per Ex.P6. On the strength of Ex.P6, PW2-the then ASI of the said Police Station registered FIR in Crime No.190/2010 against the respondents-accused as per Ex.P7 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, PW17 conducted further investigation by drawing relevant mahazars, recorded statements of the witnesses and on obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(x) of the SC/ST Act, before the learned Special Judge. After securing the presence of the accused, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges for the aforesaid offences and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. The accused neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.

4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State.

5. I have heard Smt. Girija S Hiremath, the learned HCPG for the State and Sri. Shivakumar S Badawadagi, learned counsel for the respondents-accused.

6. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the judgment challenged in this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of material witnesses in a right perspective. She contended that the complainant- PW5 and injured eyewitnesses i.e. PW7 to PW12 have categorically deposed that on the date of incident, when all of them were in the land of PW5, the accused persons trespassed the said land by holding deadly weapons and thereafter dragged the complainant and PWs.7 to 12 from the land by causing injuries on them. Further, the accused also abused them by mentioning their caste. Despite, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them based on surmises and conjunctures. She also contended that the oral testimony of all these witnesses clearly corroborates the medical evidence of PW1-Doctor and also the wound certificates Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences they are charged. Accordingly, she prays to allow t