Heard both side.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents

passed in S.C.No.28/2007 on the file of the learned I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, the

State has preferred this appeal.

The respondents were accused Nos.1 to 4 and

one Malavaiah was accused No.5 in S.C.No.28/2007

before the trial Court. They were prosecuted in the said

case for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147,

148, 324, 326, 307 read with section 149 IPC, on the

3

basis of the chargesheet filed by Channapatna East Police

Station in Crime No.66/2006 of that police station. Crime

No.66/2006 was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 5

on the basis of the complaint of PW.1 3 Rajanna as per

Ex.P1.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties

will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks

before the trial Court.

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

5.

That there was some ill-will between PW.2 3

Ramesh and accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to

purchasing of a land. On 11.06.2006 at 9.30 a.m., the

accused were clearing Milk Hedge grown along the border

of the land of PW.2. When he questioned that, accused

forming themselves into an unlawful assembly due to their

previous ill-will, assaulted him with MO.1 to MO.4 causing

grievous injuries. When his brother PW.3 came to his

rescue, the accused assaulted him also with the same

weapons and caused him grievous injuries, thereby the

accused attempted to commit the murder of PW.2 and

PW.3. At that time, PW.1 3 Rajanna, PW.8 3 Umesh,

4

PW.9 Nagamma and PW.11 3 another Umesh intervened

and pacified the accused. The accused went away,

dropping the weapons there only. Then injured PW.2 and

PW.3 were shifted to Channapatna Government Hospital

for treatment. From there they were shifted to NIMHANS

and Victoria Hospital respectively for treatment.

6.

After shifting the injured to Channapatna

Government Hospital, PW.1 filed complaint before PW.13 3

the PSI of Channapatna East Police Station. On the basis

of the said complaint, PW.13 registered FIR as per Ex.P8,

conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. He then handed

over further investigation to PW.15. During the period of

absence of PW.15, PW.14 took charge and conducted part

of investigation and got recorded the statements of PW.2

and PW.3 and then he handed over the investigation to

PW.15. Then PW.15 resumed further investigation,

conducted further investigation, filed charge sheet.

7.

The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed

charges for the offences punishable under sections 143,

147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC.

5

8.

To substantiate its case, prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.15 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and produced

MO.1 to MO.9. During the course of cross-examination of

PW.2, PW.3, PW.9 and PW.11, the defence counsel got

marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. During the pendency of trial,

accused No.5 died and the case against him abated.

9.

After examination of the accused under section

313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing the parties, the trial Court by

the judgment dated 26.06.2012 acquitted the accused.

The State challenged that judgment before this Court in

Criminal Appeal No.1318/2012. This Court by judgment

dated 29.04.2015, allowed the appeal on the ground that

the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of

injured witnesses PW.2 and PW.3 and the order is not well

reasoned one. This Court remanded the matter to the trial

Court for fresh consideration on hearing both parties.

After such remand the trial Court again by the impugned

judgment and order dated 31.08.2015, acquitted the

accused on the following grounds:-

(i)

That there are inconsistencies, contradictions

and omissions in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses.

6

(ii)

The Investigating Officer has not collected the

medical

records

from

Channapatna

Government Hospital.

(iii)

The evidence of the eyewitnesses are not

trustworthy.

(iv)

The evidence is tainted with incurable defects.

Submissions of Sri.Vinayaka.V.S., learned HCGP for