In a criminal prosecution, significant contradictions between medical records recorded at the first instance and the alleged testimony of witnesses, coupled with the hostility of key independent observers and injured witnesses, necessitate extending the benefit of doubt to the accused regarding charges of attempted murder.

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 419(1) AND (3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED IN SC/366/2022 BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 307 AND 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

The State has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Mysore in SC.No.366/2022.

2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Section 504, 307 and 114 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 and perused the Material on record.

4. There is a delay of 228 days in preferring the appeal. I.A.No.1/2026 is filed to condone the delay.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and accused are neighbours and their houses are situated opposite to each other. The accused were running a provision store and the persons who used to purchase cigarettes from the said shop used to smoke in the vacant place situated in front of the house of complainant. In this regard, the complainant had told the said customers of the accused not to smoke and not to make noise in front of their house. On 22.07.2021 at about 08:30 p.m., 4 to 5 boys were smoking in the passage situated in front of the house of the complainant and making noise. The complainant, PW.1, requested them not to smoke and not to make noise, as it was causing nuisance to the complainant and his family members. A heated exchange of words took place between the said boys and the complainant. At that time, accused No.2 abused the complainant and quarreled with him. When the complainant called his brother (PW.2) over phone and informed him about the matter, accused No.2 called his son i.e. accused No.1 who also came to the spot. Though the accused were requested to resolve the dispute in the morning, they did not listen to their words, on the other hand, accused No.1 went inside the house, brought a knife and stabbed on the left side of the chest and abdomen of the complainant and when his brother intervened to rescue him, he stabbed him on left side of his abdomen and caused bleeding injuries and when CW.3-Sahil, intervened to pacify the quarrel, accused No.1 stabbed him on the left side of the abdomen and all the accused ran away from the spot.

6. It is the contention of the learner High Court Government Pleader that from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the evidence of the doctor-PW.10 coupled with the wound certificates i.e., Exs.P12, 14 and 16, it is clear that the prosecution has established that PWs.1 to 3 have sustained injuries and those injuries are caused by accused Nos.1 and 2.

7. In this case, PW.3, one of the injured has been treated hostile. The trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the injured witnesses, has observed that at the time of quarrel, there were about 50 to 70 neighbours gathered at the spot, but none of them are cited as eye-witnesses to the incident. PWs.4 and 5 are the friends of PWs.1 and 2 and they came to the scene of occurrence on the call given by PW.2. Further, PW.2 is a rowdy-sheeter and PWs.4 and 5 are supporters of PW.2. PWs.1 and 2 have clearly admitted