STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MANIKYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Though the incident in this case is not one of grave seriusness, an interesting submission was advanced by the learned counsel who represented the accused, which requires to be dealt with as it has strong repercussions in virtually thousands of similar cases. The prosecution allegation is that the incident took place in a Bar on 7-11-1999 at about 7. 30 p. m. The complainant is a driver and it is his case that when he returned from duty PWs. Manju and Manjunath took him to the Chamundeshwari brandy shop where they initially had some rum and then, the other PWs changed over to whisky. The accused turned up there and started a quarrel in the course of which he is alleged to have assaulted Manjunatha with his chappal and his is alleged to have assaulted the complainant Shanmuga with a stone resulting in the loss of one tooth. The case was reported to the police who arrested the accused, completed their investigation. and charge-sheeted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 355 and 506 (II) of IPC. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused and it does appear to us from the judgment that the principal reasons for the acquittal is because pws. 5 and 6 who are alleged to have been present and more so PW. 5 claims to have been the victim of the assault have not supported the prosecution case. It is against the order of acquittal that the State has filed an appeal.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned State Counsel we were of the view that the decision requires reconsideration and we issued notice to the accused who remained unrepresented. We accordingly appointed an amicus curiae Counsel and we have heard both the learned counsel on merits today.

(3.) THE only submission canvassed by the learned Government Counsel is that the evidence of the complainant Shanmuga is perfectly acceptable, that there has been virtually no cross-examination to dispute his evidence that it was the accused who assaulted him and caused the injury and secondly, the learned Government Counsel brings it to our notice that in this case the doctor P. W. 3 has very clearly established the injury which is the strongest corroboration that the Court would look for. He also points out that no valid reasons have been given for discarding the evidence of the complainant and that consequently, a conviction will have to be recorded against the accused.