The evidence from official witnesses cannot be disregarded solely due to their status, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of credibility.

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

- 3 -

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.

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

- 4 -

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

- 5 -

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 prosecution, while

PW.19, the witness to the seizure mahazar, did not support the

prosecution.

Howeve