The petitioner, being the complainant, has filed this

revision petition challenging the judgment of acquittal dated

05.02.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C.,

Moodabidri (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in

- 3 -

C.C.No.555/2006. The petitioner has also challenged the

judgment dated 11.09.2013 passed by the II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (henceforth

referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Crl.A.No.30/2010.

The case of the prosecution hinged on a complaint

lodged by the petitioner herein, that on 19.03.2006, the

accused with a common intention to create commotion, entered

the Church, where the petitioner was a Priest and when he was

offering prayers, the accused No.1 held him by his neck, while

accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted with hands and accused No.2

assaulted him with a wooden stick on his neck, back and other

parts of the body. The accused No.1 also assaulted Mr.

Anthony Menezas, who tried to intervene, causing injury to his

little finger of the left hand. The accused No.1 allegedly

threatened to kill the complainant. A case in Crime No.42/2006

was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323,

324, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The investigating

officer took up investigation and seized the wooden stick,

recorded the statement of the complainant, statement of

Anthony Menezas, conducted a spot mahazar and thereafter,

- 4 -

filed a charge-sheet accusing the accused of committing

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC.

The Trial Court took cognizance of the said offences

and issued process to the accused. The accused appeared and

they were released on bail. Copies of the charge-sheet were

furnished to the accused and their plea was recorded. The

accused denied the allegations and prayed that they be tried.

The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and marked Exs.P1 to

P5 and a material object as MO.1. The statements of the

accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied

the incriminating evidence against them and produced certain

documents in defence.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

Trial Court held that the accused had filed PCR Nos.16/2005

and 17/2005, where they claimed that the complainant and the

accused were at loggerheads as the complainant had

constructed a huge house, which had 11 rooms for his use and

occupation, out of the funds of the church, despite opposition

- 5 -

by the devotees and residents of the village. The Trial Court

therefore, held that the complainant and the accused were up

in arms against each other. The Trial Court held that PW.1 was

the complainant, who claimed that on 19.03.2006 there were

100 - 150 parishioners and that when he raised for an

affirmation, the accused rushed to the dais and accused No.1

caught hold of him by his neck and threatened to kill him, while

accused No.2 assaulted him with a stick. He claimed that when

accused No.1 released him, the accused No.2 again assaulted

him and when PW.1 tried to avoid being hit, his right hand was

injured. He claimed that the accused No.2 also assaulted him

with a stick below his chest on the left side and on the left side

of his neck. He claimed that accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted

him on his back when accused No.1 had held him. He alleged

that CW2 to CW8, who rushed to the dais, extricated him.

However, accused No.1 caught hold of the little finger of CW.2

and twisted it, resulting in a fracture of his left finger. He

alleged that the accused threatened to kill those who attempted

to saved him. He claimed that he was taken to the hospital by

CW.4 and CW.5, where his statement (Ex.P1) was recorded.

- 6 -

He identified the spot mahazar drawn on the next day as Ex.P2

and also identified the signature thereon.

The Trial Court noticed that CW.2 was the eye-

witness, who was examined as PW.2, who supported the

prosecution and deposed on the same lines as PW.