The acquittal of accused for assaulting public servants was overturned due to erroneous appreciation of consistent witness testimonies.

ORDER

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 23.08.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. within the limits of Subramanya Police Station at Kalmadka, Mucchila Village, Sullia Taluk, the accused persons along with one Juvenile in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as ‘JCWL’) formed unlawful assembly to achieve their common object rioting by wrongly restraining C.W.2 from moving KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-7958 and the accused persons along with JCWL named Mohammed Asif have abused C.W.2 with filthy language and intentionally have insulted him to provoke to commit breach of public peace. They also caused voluntary simple hurt to C.W.1 by their hands and legs and caused bodily pain to him. They also torn the uniform of C.W.1 by causing obstruction to discharge duty as public servant and deterred to do his official duty as conductor of KSRTC bus, then the passengers in that bus have intervened and pacified the incident. Thereafter, the C.W.1 was taken to PHC, Sullia and got treatment.

3. Based on the first information furnished by C.W.2, who is the driver of the KSRTC bus, the police have recorded the statement of C.W.1 at PHC Hospital on the very same day at 8.00 p.m. and crime was registered in Crime No.76/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 147 , 341, 504, 323, 332 and 353 read with Section 149 of IPC. The Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses and accused persons and later they have been enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer also collected the wound certificate pertaining to C.W.1 and after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.

4. The respondents/accused appeared before the Court and denied the charges leveled against them. The prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6(a) and also marked M.Os.1 and 2 i.e., kaki colour shirt and kaki colour pant and the defence have not led any evidence and only got marked the document as Ex.D1 i.e., the statement recorded under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. of P.W.3.

5. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, not accepted the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused persons, in coming to the conclusion that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.5033/2017 and the First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court accepting the reasoning given by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 and 9 and it does not require any interference. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal and confirmation of the same by the First Appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned HCGP for the petitioner is that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and no material contradictions in their evidence. The witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and the conductor have categorically deposed as to how the incident has taken place. It is their evidence that two of them boarded the bus and galatta has taken place with regard to return of change and thereafter, when the bus reached near Mucchila, the accused persons secured other accused persons and all of them have dragged