ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by State aggrieved by judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by 1^st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, U.K., Karwar sitting at Sirsi in Criminal Appeal no.5019/2019 and judgment dated 27.03.2019 in CC.no.103/2014 by Senior JMFC., Mundgod.

2. Heard Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for petitioner.

3. Brief facts as stated are, complaint was filed by Basavaraj Maruti Naik, Forest Guard, Mundgod Division, Kalkeri, alleging that at 8:00 pm on 24.03.2013, information was received about unknown person roaming with rifle for hunting, in F.Sy.no.20 of Andalagi Forest. On reaching spot with Venkatesh Karadgi, Forest Guard and Banalli, they found a person carrying rifle in his hand. On enquiry, he revealed his name was Ramanna Gangappa Chigappanavar. While bringing him back to their office for further action, when they reached village, said Ramanna attempted to escape. He called other accused for help, who formed unlawful assembly and assaulted complainant, though he was in his uniform and while on duty. They assaulted with hands inflicting injuries, tore his uniform and damaged his motorcycle. It was alleged that accused had thereby assisted accused to escape and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 332, 224, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short). Same was registered as Crime no.41/2013.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in CC.no.103/2014. Charges were framed. On denial, trial was held. While, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs.1 and 2. On other hand, accused no.3 was examined as DW.1 and an independent witness examined as DW.2. But, without proper appreciation, trial Court acquitted accused no.1 to 8 of all charges. Aggrieved, Criminal Appeal no.501/2019 was filed. But same was dismissed, leading to this petition.

5. It was submitted, complainant was assaulted while he was discharging official duty. It was submitted, accused no.1 was intercepted in forest area while he was carrying rifle for hunting. While he was being taken to office for further action, accused no.1 with help of other accused escaped and in process, accused had inflicted injuries and caused damage to his motorcycle. It was submitted, though PWs.2, 3 and 5 – pancha witnesses, PWs.6, 7 and 11 – eye-witnesses, did not support prosecution; PW.1 – complainant, PW.4 – pancha witness, PWs.8 to 10 – eye-witnesses and other official witnesses supported prosecution. Deposition of said witnesses would duly establish charges. However, without proper consideration, both Courts acquitted accused. It was submitted, oral evidence was corroborated by documentary evidence Medical Examination Report - Ex.P13 and MOs.1 and 2 which had blood stains.

6. It was submitted, PW.1 – complainant had duly deposed in terms of complaint. His deposition was corroborated by PW.4 - pancha-witness to seizure mahazar, who identified torn uniform and damaged motorcycle. Likewise, PWs.8 to 10 eye-witnesses also duly supported prosecution case. Though nothing material was elicited from them during cross- examination so as to discredit their deposition, trial Court as well as Appellate Court acquitted accused.

7. It was submitted, though statements were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, accused failed to offer any satisfactory explanation about incriminating material.

8. It was submitted, reason assigned by Appellate Court for discarding deposition of PWs.11, 12, 14 and 15 was on ground that incident occurred near house of V.S. Patil of Andalagi village, but PW.12 was stated to be present at spot with pancha-witnesses. Even Appellate Court failed to consider Wound Certificate and evidence of doctor about injuries sustained by complainant – PW.1. Hence sought interference by allowing revision.

9. None appears for respondents - accused.

10. Perused impugned judgment by trial as well as Appellate Courts and re