The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

This appeal is as against the Judgment dated

05.07.2017 in Sessions Case No.136/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan [for short 'the Sessions Court']. The Sessions Court, by the impugned Judgment, has acquitted the second to fifth respondents of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 326, 307 and

114 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The Prosecution's case against the second to fifth respondents [the private respondents] briefly stated is thus: The first appellant and the private respondents own adjacent lands. On 01.03.2008, the first appellant drove a bullock cart through the private respondents’ land to reach his land with these respondents raising objections; and on the next day [on 02.03.2008], when the first appellant and his son, Sri Srinivasa - the second appellant [CW2], were working in the field, the second to fifth respondents wrongfully restrained them and assaulted them. 3. The Prosecution contended that the second respondent assaulted the first appellant on his head with chopper with the other respondents assaulting him on his lower limb and abdomen as also other parts of the body and that these respondents also assaulted the first appellant's son using the same chopper and sticks. With the case being made over to the Sessions Court, and when Charges are framed and read out to the accused, the private respondents have pleaded not guilty and asked to be tried. These respondents were on bail during the proceedings.

4. The Prosecution has examined the appellant [PW1], the second appellant [PW2], the first appellant's wife, Smt. Laxmamma [PW3] and other witnesses apart from the Doctor [Dr. Nagesh, PW15] and Police witnesses. The other witnesses have all turned hostile, and they have not supported the prosecution case. The Doctor has spoken about examining the second appellant, and about this appellant suffering a minor injury in the back of the head and an injury in the left forearm. This Doctor has also spoken about the other injury suffered by the appellants.

5. In the cross examination, the Doctor has stated that X-rays taken at the time of treating the appellants are not produced, that a Radiologist/ Orthopedician have examined these films and that he could not identify the age of the injuries when he examined the appellants, while also stating that the appellants were conscious when admitted to the hospital. The Doctor has also stated that the appellants had only suffered minor injuries.

6. The fourth respondent [the third accused]

has entered the defense of alibi stating that he was a teaching faculty with a College and that he was attending a NSS function on the date of the alleged offence. The private respondents have marked certain photographs and other records to show that the first appellant had suffered no injury and that in an industrial dispute, he has deposed that he and his son suffered certain injuries when they fell from a tree.

7. The Sessions Court has disbelieved the defense of alibi but has concluded that the prosecution has not proved facts because of material discrepancies and omissions. Sri Nataraja Ballal, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the second to fifth respondents, and Sri Rajat Subramanya, the learned High Court Government Pleader, for the first respondent, are heard to answer the question, whether this Court must interfere with the Sessions Court's finding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused.

8. This Court must observe that the case must turn on the medical evidence and the appellant’s evidence. The Doctor [PW15] is categorical in stating that the second appellant had suffered no fracture an