The petitioner 3 accused No.7 is before this Court calling in

question proceedings in J.C.Cr.No.4/2015, pending before the

Juvenile Justice Board, Mangaluru, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 324,

326, 307, 395 r/w. 149 of the IPC, arising out of Crime

No.262/2014.

2. Heard Sri Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. The facts of the case at hand need not detain this Court

as the petitioner was one of those many accused who were tried

3

by the learned Sessions Judge in the S.C.No.59/2015. The

learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 16.08.2018,

holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to drive home

the offence against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt,

acquitted all the accused in the said case. The judgment passed

by the learned Sessions Judge insofar as it is germane for

consideration of the present case is as follows:

<29. On the other hand, the accused have taken a

defense that PW-1 and PW-3 had fallen in a ditch when they

were transporting stolen cattle and that they have lodged

false complaint against them. As already pointed out, there is

no sufficient evidence on record to show that the vehicle of

PW-1 had fallen to ditch on account o dashing another pick-up

vehicle against their vehicle. In the said circumstances, the

chance of PW-1 and PW-3 having fallen to ditch with their

vehicle of their own cannot be ruled out. Undisputedly PW-17

had registered a case against PW-1 and PW-3 at 1-30 p.m.

PW-1 has given statement before the police between 3.00 p.m.

to 4.00 p.m. and stated about involvement of 10 persons in

the alleged incident. PW-1 himself has not supported such

statement during his evidence before the Court. Thereby one

cannot rule out PW-1 having falsely implicated the accused

persons to get over the case registered against him. In view

of the same, this Court holds that the materials on record

create a strong suspicion as to reliability of the statements

made by PW-1 and PW-3. Hence, it is held that the

prosecution has failed to prove the accusation made against

the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

30.

Learned Public Prosecutor has relied on several

decisions which lay down principles governing appreciation of

4

evidence. It is well settled that the legal principles have to be

applied to the case by taking into consideration facts and

circumstances of each case. In the case on hand though the

materials on record indicate that PW-1 and PW-3 had got

injured on 2.10.2014 at 6-45 a.m. in Poorlippady, there is no

sufficient evidence on record to show that PW-1 and PW-3 had

sustained such injuries because of assault committed by the

accused persons. In view of the same, this Court holds that

the decisions relied on by learned Public Prosecutor are no

way helpful to the prosecution in proving the accusation made

against the accused persons. For the foregoing reasons, Point

No.1 is answered in the Negative.

31.

Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceeds to

pass the following:

ORDER

Acting under Section 235(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code Accused Nos.1 to 6 are acquitted

from the charges for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 341, 504,

506, 324, 326, 307, 395 read with Section 149 of

Indian Penal Code.

M.O.3 to M.O.13 being worthless, same are

ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal

period.

M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.14 and M.O.15 are

confiscated to the State.=

The petitioner is not one of those who are acquitted in the

case at hand. The reason for not acquitting the petitioner 3

accused No.7 was that, he was juvenile when the crime was

committed

and

he

had

to

be

tried

separately

in

5

J.C.Cr.No.4/2015. In the light of the judgment of acquittal

passed against all the accused, who were beyond the age of 18

years, the same would enure to the benefit of the accused as the

finding of the learned Sessions Judge is th