In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of vital evidence creates reasonable doubt, justifying acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)

This appeal is by the State questioning the correctness of the acquittal judgment dated 27.12.2017 in Sessions Case No.5005/2015 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (sitting at Puttur). Five accused persons faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 , 307 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC , and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 .

2. The prosecution case is as below:

There was dispute with regard to using a pathway between the families of Gattigaru Seetharama and Marlakaje family. A panchayath was arranged to resolve this dispute and in that panchayath, PW.1 participated in favour of Gattigaru Seetharama. On 15.02.2014, PW.1 went to the house of Vijaya Kumar in connection with cooking food, as marriage had been arranged in his family. The accused persons also came to the marriage place for the purpose of cooking food. Around 2.30 a.m. the accused persons left the place after finishing the cooking work. PW.1 also left that place riding his motorcycle. One Purushotham i.e., PW.2 accompanied PW.1. As they were riding the motorcycle in the rubber plantation of Kolcharu Purushothama, around 3.00 a.m., the accused persons stopped the motorcycle, asked Purushothama to move away from the place and then threatened PW.1 at the point of a gun stating that they would kill him. The further allegation was that PW.1 was knocked down from the motor bike and the accused inflicted injuries on both the eyes and lips. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are said to have held the neck of PW.1 to kill him. Accused No.1 took a knife and inflicted injury on the genital of PW.1. Seeing Purushothama making telephone call to one Vijay Kumar, all the accused left that place thinking that PW.1 was dead. Thereafter PW.1 was taken to hospital where his statement was recorded for registration of FIR. Investigation was held and thus the accused came to be charge sheeted.

3. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced 10 documents and 2 material objects to establish its case. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court recorded the findings that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 cannot be believed because of previous enmity between them and the accused. Both PW.1 and PW.2 were heavily drunk at the time when they were cooking in the house of PW.3 in connection with the marriage. The defence was that PW.1 fell down from the motorcycle, there was a possibility of such a fall because PW.1 was drunk. There was no believable evidence to show that MO.1 and MO.2 were used for commission of the offences. In view of inconsistency and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, a doubt arises with regard to the very incident and thus the accused would become entitled to acquittal.

4. Learned Government Pleader assails the findings of the trial court by arguing that the existence of enmity between two families is not in dispute and in that connection, a panchayath had been held. PW.1 participated in the panchayath and spoke in favour of PW.8 and this was the reason for the accused grudging against PW.1. So far as incident is concerned, PW.1 has given a good narration and injuries sustained by him finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Two doctors have stated about the injuries which PW.1 has also stated. In this view it cannot be said that the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed. Further PW.2 was very much present at the time when the incident occurred. Standing at a distance he saw the entire incident. He spoke in tandem with PW.1. For this reason, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be disbelieved. PW.3 stated that there was marriage in his house and PW.1 as well as the accused had come for cooking the food. PW.5 and PW.8 state that there is a dispute with regard to pathway. Looked from any angle, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution establish the incident. Therefore, there was no reason for the