Credibility of witness testimony is critical, as inconsistencies and reliance on interested parties undermine the prosecution’s case, especially amid ongoing civil disputes.

judgm

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2024 passed in S.C.No.107/2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan (for brevity, "the learned Sessions Judge"), whereby learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 i.e., appellant No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, "the 1989 Act") and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act and, also convicted accused No.2-appellant No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

-

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that -

On 07.06.2008 at about 5 p.m. at Neeragunda Village, when PW.2 - Rudresha went to fetch water in the borewell, accused No.1/appellant No.1 picked up a quarrel with PW.2 - Rudresh in respect of drawing water from the borewell and abused him by mentioning his caste and kicked the pot and later she slapped PW.2. At that time, accused No.2 came and assaulted PW.2 with M.O.1-stick on his right thigh and accused Nos.3 to 5 joined accused Nos.1 and 2 and abused PW.2 by mentioning his caste. At that time all the villagers nearly 26 person gathered in the said spot facilitated accused Nos.1 to 5 to assault the victim-PW.2. Thus, PW.1 - maternal aunt of PW.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent - Police against 31 persons as per Ex.P1 on 09.06.2008. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.16 - PSI registered a case in Crime No.93/2008 dated 09.06.2008 against 31 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x),(xiii) of the 1989 Act as per Ex.P7 - FIR.

-

3. Subsequently, PW.17 conducted investigation and laid the chargesheet against five accused persons by arraigning appellants herein as accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Sessions Court. After securing the presence of accused, learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges against accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to them. However, accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

-

4. To prove the charges leveled against the accused before the Sessions Court, the prosecution has examined, in all, 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.1 to 10 and also identified the material object - stick as M.O.1.

5. On completion of prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

6. The accused neither choose to examine any witnesses, nor produced any documents on their behalf.

7. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 as stated supra and acquitted accused No.3 to 5 in the impugned judgment.

8. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged by accused Nos.1 and 2 before this Court in this appeal.

-

9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. He contended that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 who are closely related to each other and there are material contradictions and omissions in their evidence. As such, their testimony cannot be relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused.

10. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint - Ex.P.1. Though the alleged incident