G.N. KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SAGAR RURAL POLICE STATION, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment dated 28.6.05 passed in S.C. No. 1 19/02 by the Fast Track Court II, Shimoga convicting them for offence under Sections 325, 341, 504, 324 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - for offence under Section 341 r/w 34 IPC: pay fine of Rs. 500/ - each for offence under Section 504 r/w 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/ - each for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - for the offence under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC with default clause.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 6 on 21.11.01 at about 9 p.m., at RMC yard, Sagar town formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object of murdering CW -1 in the background of earlier ill -will between CW -1 and A -1 and thereafter holding lethal weapons like clubs and cycle chain assaulted CW -1 stopping him going further and insulted him and criminally intimidated and caused grievous and simple injuries thereby they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 324 r/w 149 IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused intentionally assaulted the complainant CW -1 with an intention to cause his death and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 307 r/w 149 IPC.

(3.) HEARD Smt. M. Gayathri, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP for State. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the prosecution has not proved that the complainant has suffered grievous injury since no X -ray has been produced and Dentist who has examined the injured PW -1 has not been examined before the court. Under the circumstances the offence under Section 325 IPC is not proved. She further submits that there is bitter enmity between the complainant and the accused as on the date of the offence. However, when CW -1 went to the doctor on the date of the incident at about 10 p.m., i.e. within one hour from the lime of occurrence, he has not disclosed either weapons used nor the names of the assailants to the doctor which is most unnatural in view of the fact there was enmity between the accused and PW -1 and PW -1 had identified the accused. Hence, in this case non mentioning of the names of the accused in the wound certificate is fatal to the prosecution ease. She further submits that PW -1 has stated that one accused has assaulted on him on the head and that there was internal injury consequent upon his wearing helmet but no injuries has been found by the doctor. Therefore, the narration of the incident by the complainant is not according to the facts and is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, she submits that the evidence of the injured is not supported by the medical evidence and hence, the Appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal. She further submits that other witnesses viz., P Ws.2, 3 and 6 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and therefore, the version of PW -1 is not corroborated by any eye witness. Under the circumstances, she submits that the accused may be acquitted by allowing this appeal.