Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the State questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2016 passed in S.C.No.114/2011 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Mandya.

2. Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are that on 14.01.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. R.Raghavendra, C.T.Anthony Vinod Varghese, Rajesh, Naga, Keshava and Ajith were decorating in Ganesha temple situated at Swarnasandra in Mandya city. At that time, Vijaya accused No.4 came to the said place and demanded Ajith to repay the loan amount. The said Ajith informed that the entire amount had been repaid. At that time, heated exchange of words took place between accused No.4 and Ajith. Sri.R.Raghavendra, Sri.C.T.Anthony and Sri.Ajith went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. It is the further case of the prosecution that R.Raghavendra, C.T.Anthony and Ajith were sitting near Computer Centre which is near Rangamandira of Swarnasandra. At about 9.30 p.m., accused came near them and questioned about the lodging of the complaint against them. At that time, accused No.1 Santosh stated that he would finish off Ajith, raised a long and made an attempt on Ajith. R. Raghavendra and C.T.Anthony started running towards 8th Cross Road. Accused No.1, tried to assault Ajith on his neck with the long. At that time, C.T.Anthony stretched his left hand to prevent the said assault as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his left hand. Accused Nos.2 to 6 assaulted Ajith with hockey sticks and caused injuries on face, head and forearm and fled away in a Maruti Omni car bearing No.KA-2 N-5759. The injured Ajith and C.T.Anthony took treatment at different hospitals. The police completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 326, 307 read with 149 of IPC.

3. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences charged against them. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW-1 to PW17, marked 29 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and material objects as MO-1 to MO-12. The accused did not adduce any evidence but got marked the documents in the cross-examination while as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-10. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to acquit the accused.

4. The Trial Court recorded the reasons that the injured and eye witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 5 are not consistent, there are a number of discrepancies in their evidence. The Trial Court held that PWs-1 to 5 are the interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined. The Trial Court further recorded that as per the evidence of PW-2, he and Ajith have taken treatment from PW-8. However, PW-8 deposed that he provided first aid treatment to PW-2 and Ajith and noted the injuries. PW-8 stated that there was alcohol smell in the breathe of the injured. He further stated that there were no blood injuries on the injured and the investigating officer did not show the weapons MOs-1 to 8 to him, did not seek his opinion and also did not receive any wound certificate. The Trial Court further reasoned that the injuries suffered by PW-2 are grievous in nature and the weapon from which such injuries were caused should have contained blood stains. The prosecution sent MO-1 for FSL examination and seized the clothes worn by PW-2 which contained blood stains. The seized clothes and the blood sample of PW-2 were se