Official witness testimony can support conviction even without independent corroboration unless proven otherwise.

ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Tiptur (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.581/2010 convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 353, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months along with fine of Rs.500/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months along with fine of Rs.500/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months along with fine of Rs.500/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the judgment dated 26.09.2013 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.173/2012 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arraigned before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein were the accused.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 10.11.2009, the accused damaged the chair, glass tops on the table at the time of a photo shoot programme at Hunseghatta Gram Panchayat. Later, on 21.11.2009 at about 1.00 p.m., when the accused No.1 came outside from the house of CW.4 at Hunseghatta village, CW.1 asked accused No.1 to accompany him to the police station to answer a crime committed by accused No.1 on 10.11.2009, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to CW.1, while accused No.2 also joined hands and caused hurt to CW.1 and sped away on a motorcycle. Based on the complaint of CW.1, the accused were arrested. The investigating officer recorded the statements of CW.1 to CW.14 and recovered a motorcycle used by the accused and filed a charge-sheet accusing the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 , 353, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and secured the accused, who were released on bail. Copies of the charge-sheet were furnished to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.20 and marked Exs.P1 to P16 and the motorcycle as MO.1. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and they denied the incriminating evidence against them. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that though PW.3, PW.5 to PW.8 were the independent eye-witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution. They also did not identify their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which were marked as Exs.P3 to P7. It held that PW.10 to PW.12 were the Village Accountants, who were present at the photo shoot and they deposed that the accused No.1 threatened PW.1 of his life and that both the accused caused hurt to PW.1 when he tried to catch them when they escaped on the motorcycle. It also considered the evidence of PW.17, who was the Doctor, who deposed that CW.1 had suffered simple injuries. The Trial Court therefore held that the official witnesses had supported the prosecution, while the independent eye-witnesses PW.3, PW.5 to PW.8, PW.13 and PW.14 did not support the prosecution. The Trial Court held that PW.15 and 16 were the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar, who did not support the prosecut