State Of Karnataka vs Chandrashekhar C
2021 Latest Caselaw 6414 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                            AND
         THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100160/2017

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RURAL SUB DIVISION,
BALLARI,
THROUGH THE ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.                         ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

AND:

1.   CHANDRASHEKHAR C.
     S/O. VENKATESH C
     AGE 45 YEARS,
     OCC FARMER

2.     LAKSHMINARAYANA C
       S/O. VENKATESH
       AGE:71 YEARS,
       OCC:FARMER
                                        CRL.A.No.100160/2017

                             2




3.   VENKATARAMUDU C
     S/O. VENKATAIAH C
     AGE:71 YEARS,
     OCC:FARMER

4.   VINAYKUMAR C S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
      AGE:29 YEARS,
      OCC:FARMER

5.   SANDEEP S/O. VENKATARAMUDU
     AGE:25 YEARS,
     OCC:FARMER

6.   NARESH C
     S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR C
     AGE:24 YEARS,
     OCC:FARMER

ALL ARE R/O. NELLUDI
KOTTAL VILLAGE
BALLARI
TALUK and DISTRICT
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.J.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6,
    SRI A.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 03.01.2017 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSIONS
CASE NO. 149 OF 2014 AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT /
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 355 READ WITH SECTION 149
OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 (1)(X) OF SCHEDULED CASTE
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT
1989.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON
07.12.2021 AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
                                                CRL.A.No.100160/2017

                                  3


FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, SURAJ
GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

1. The State is before this Court aggrieved by the

order of acquittal of the accused passed by the I

Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ballari, dated

03.01.2017 in Special Case No.149/2014.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2014

at about 7.30 a.m. when CW.1/PW.1-Harijana

Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar were

doing coolie work in the land of CW-4/PW.5-Chinna

Rangaswamy bearing Sy.No.69/D, in an area

measuring 50 cents situated at Shankar Singh

Camp within the limits of Kurugodu police station.

3. Accused No.1-Chandrashekar to accused No.7-

Sridhar formed themselves into an unlawful

assembly, came to the said land, abused

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

Naveen Kumar using their caste and asked them to

stop the work being done by them and get out of

the land. CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and

CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar refused to do so stating

that they had been doing coolie work in the said

land for the last 10 years and asked the accused to

contact the owner of the land being their employer

namely CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy.

4. Accused 1 to 7 are stated to have abused

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

Naveen Kumar using their caste and assaulted

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna over his head with

an axe and caused simple injuries to him and

accused No.2-Lakshminarayana assaulted the

complainant with his left leg's chappal(footwear)

over his face and accused No.5-Sandeep and

accused No.6-Naresh assaulted the complainant

over his back with their hands and accused No.7-

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

Sridhar assaulted with his right leg's chappal. All

the time the accused abused CW.1/PW.1-Harijana

Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar and

gave a life threat to them. At this time,

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

Naveen Kumar are alleged to have fallen on the

feet of the accused despite which they continued to

assault CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and

CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar and left the spot.

5. It is on this basis that on 03.08.2014 at 6.30 p.m.,

the complainant came to the police station and

lodged the complaint on which basis Kurugodu

police registered Cr.No.213/2014, carried out an

investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 504 and 506 read

with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) CRL.A.No.100160/2017

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

6. On the charge sheet being filed, summons were

issued to the accused who entered appearance

along with anticipatory bail order. Hence, they

were released on bail, copies of the prosecution

papers were supplied to them, they were heard

before the charge and charges were framed for

offences under the aforesaid provisions, explained

in Kannada language known to them, the accused

denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.

7. The prosecution in order to prove its case, led the

evidence of 10 witnesses as PWs-1 to 10, got

marked 8 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and got

marked two material objects as M.Os.1 and 2.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

8. On the evidence being completed, the

incriminating evidence against the accused was put

across to them, their statements under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they

denied the evidence against them. Though they

did not lead evidence, they produced certain

documents. However, they were not marked in

evidence.

9. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the

accused and the prosecution acquitted the accused

of the offences on the ground of benefit of doubt.

It is aggrieved by the same that the State is in

appeal before this Court.

10. Shri Banakar, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor

submits that

10.1. CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4-

Krishnaiah and CW-4/PW.5-Chinna CRL.A.No.100160/2017

Rangaswamy are eye-witnesses to the crime.

All of them have categorically stated that the

accused have abused CW.1/PW.1-Harijana

Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar

using their caste and having assaulted them,

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna who is the

complainant and injured witness has

specifically deposed about the overt acts

committed by each of the accused which is

supported by the eye-witnesses CW.5/PW.3-

Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah and CW-

4/PW.5-Chinna          Rangaswamy            and

corroborated      by     the     evidence      of

CW.12/PW.10-Dr.Rangaswamy, the Medical

Officer who treated the injured person, the

said deposition has not been looked into

properly and has not been considered by the

trial Court resulting in miscarriage of justice.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

10.2. The evidence of other witnesses including

eye-witnesses has not been appreciated by

the trial Court in its proper manner, all the

witnesses have supported the case of the

prosecution, the trial Court has misdirected

itself and acted perversely by taking into

consideration the aspects which were not

required to be so taken into consideration

resulting in the acquittal.

10.3. The evidence on record establishes the

offence having been committed which require

the trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a

proper manner and convict the accused.

10.4. He refers to and relies upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

BALESHWAR MAHTO AND ANOTHER VS.

STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2017) 3 SCC CRL.A.No.100160/2017

152, more particularly, paragraphs 9, 10 and

11 thereof which are reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

"9. Regarding the argument of the counsel for the appellants that there is contradiction between the oral evidence and the medical records, we do not find any such inconsistency as alleged by the defence. Insofar as injury inflicted on the deceased Lala Mahto is concerned, no doubt PW-2 (Dr. C.P. Sinha) has stated that it seemed to have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. However, at the same time it is pointed out that injury in nature was one incised weapon 4 ½ x1"x scalp bone deep on the right side of head injuring the right parietal lobe of brain laceration of this cortex cells resulting to unconsciousness and paralysis of the left side of the body. It is significant to mention that he has further categorically stated that in his opinion such an injury could have been caused by rifle shot as well. Likewise, in the postmortem report also, it is stated that injury was ante-mortem which was incised wound of the same measurement and description as given in report of PW-2. This post- mortem report further discloses that on dissection, it was found that skull was cut and fractured corresponding to the level of the injury and brain was lacerated by pieces of bone.

10. Likewise, insofar as injuries which were found on the person of Bindeshwar Prasad, brother of PW-7 description thereof is as under:

"(i) One lacerated wound 1"x1"/4x1"/4 on the head internally.

(ii) Three lacerated wound of various sizes-

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

sizes ranging 2 ½" x ¼ "x ¼" to 1"x ¼" x ¼" on the back."

No doubt, it is mentioned that the aforesaid injuries were simple in nature. However, the learned counsel for the appellants conveniently omitted to mention about the injuries inflicted upon PW-7 which according to PW-2 were as under:

"1. Multiple Pea sized gunshot wound (pellets) on the left scapular region of the back. 'All were superficial.'

2. One Pea sized pellet wound on the left side of head posteriorly. It was also superficial."

These injuries are sufficient to rope in A-2 for offences under Section 307 IPC.

11. When we examine the matter in the aforesaid perspective we do not find any inconsistency between ocular evidence and the medical evidence. How medical evidence is to be collated with ocular evidence, is described by this Court in Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab in the following fashion: (SCC p.159, para 8)

"8. It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the latter. Unless medical evidence in its term goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner stated by the eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out. (See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 2 SCC 174]. The position was illuminatingly and exhaustively reiterated in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal [(1988) 4 SCC 302]. When the acquittal by the trial court was found to be on the basis of unwarranted assumptions and manifestly erroneous appreciation of evidence by ignoring valuable and credible evidence resulting in serious and substantial CRL.A.No.100160/2017

miscarriage of justice, the High Court cannot in this case be found fault with for its well-merited interference."

10.5. On the basis of the above he submits that the

judgement of the trial court is required to be

reversed and the accused convicted of the

offences that they were charged.

11. Shri J.Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for

respondents/accused would submit that

11.1. There were disputes between the employer of

the complainant namely CW-4/PW.5-Chinna

Rangaswamy and the accused as regards the

subject lands. There are several inter-se

complaints which have been filed between

the accused and the employer of the

complainant namely CW-4/PW.5-Chinna

Rangaswamy.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

11.2. Cases had been filed against CW-4/PW.5-

Chinna Rangaswamy, CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa,

CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni and CW.8/PW.8-

Naveen Kumar with a strong motive to

implicate the accused so as to make them to

come to terms with the demands of the

employer of the complainant namely CW-

4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy.

11.3. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P.8 would

indicate that there is an overwriting on the

said certificate. Despite the overwriting, the

doctor has opined that the injuries are simple

in nature. If that be so, no offence as

aforesaid under which the accused have been

charged are made out.

11.4. CW.12/PW.10-Dr.Rangaswamy, the doctor in

his cross-examination also admitted about CRL.A.No.100160/2017

the overwriting and the simple nature of the

injuries.

11.5. The caste of the complainant is not material

inasmuch as even according to the

complainant, the dispute is as relating to the

land and there is no dispute between the

accused and the complainant.

11.6. Even according to the complaint, a false case

has been filed to implicate the accused on

account of the dispute with the employer of

the complainant namely CW-4/PW.5-Chinna

Rangaswamy and the accused.

11.7. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and

there is no independent witness. Even these

witnesses have admitted the existence of

dispute between the accused and the

employer of the complainant namely CW-

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy which has been

properly appreciated by the trial Court and

the benefit of doubt has been extended to the

accused by dismissing the proceedings filed.

11.8. He submits that merely because the

complainant belongs to the Schedule Caste

community no offices under the special Act

can be said to be made out and in this regard

he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of RAMDAS VS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in

(2007) 2 SCC 170, more particularly,

paragraph 11 which is reproduced hereunder

for easy reference:

"11. At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a scheduled caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to CRL.A.No.100160/2017

the Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that the prosecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste community. The conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside.

11.9. He submits that once an order of acquittal

has been passed, the appellate court should

not interfere with the said order of acquittal

merely because another view is possible, in

this regard he relies upon another decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

KRISHNEGOWDA VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA reported in (2017) 13 SCC

98, more particularly, paragraph 10 thereof

which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference:

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

"10. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the State of Karnataka carried the matter to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court being conscious of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal observed that, appellate Court should not interfere with the order of the acquittal, if the view taken by the Trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse proceedings. The High Court went ahead to scrutinize the legality or otherwise of the order of acquittal."

11.10. Relying upon the above he submits that the

judgment of the trial Court being proper and

correct, there is nothing that requires this

Court to re-appreciate the evidence on

record. Even if the evidence on record is re-

appreciated, the finding of the trial Court

would have to be confirmed.

12. It is in the above background that we have to

consider whether the prosecution has been able to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt and if the judgment passed by CRL.A.No.100160/2017

the trial Court is proper or not. For this purpose,

we would be required to re-appreciate the

evidence on record in relation to the above

aspects.

13. CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna has stated that

when he was in the land of his employer CW-

4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy, there was a quarrel

which took place around 7:30 a.m. and the

accused came and asked him to get out of the

land. When he informed them that they were

doing coolie work in the land for the last 10 years

and the accused would have to speak to their

employer namely CW-4/PW.5-Chinna

Rangaswamy, accused No.1-Chandrashekar

assaulted him with an axe over his head due to

which he sustained bleeding injuries. Accused

No.2-Lakshminarayana assaulted him with his

chappal on his back and the remaining accused CRL.A.No.100160/2017

pulled him to the road. He has stated that he was

taken to VIMS Hospital for treatment and

thereafter, he came to Kurugodu Police Station and

filed a complaint. He has stated that except for

the above, he has not stated anything else to the

police. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor

requested the Court to treat him as hostile witness

and cross-examined CW.1/PW.1-Harijana

Thippanna. The Public Prosecutor cross-examined

him. During the cross-examination, he has

confirmed his statement and admitted all the

suggestions put across which is the basis of the

complaint filed, thereby supporting the case of the

prosecution.

14. During the course of cross-examination by the

accused counsel, he has admitted that he does not

know anything about the civil dispute in respect of

the land between CW-4/PW.5-Chinna CRL.A.No.100160/2017

Rangaswamy, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4-

Krishnaiah and CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa and the

accused. He has admitted that he was brought in

a private car to Kurugodu Hospital and thereafter

taken to Ballari VIMS Hospital. Thus, contradicting

his statement in evidence that he was brought in

an ambulance. Though in the examination-in-chief

he has stated that he himself has written the

complaint, in his cross-examination he has

admitted that one CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa had

written the complaint.

15. CW.2/PW.2- Riyazuddin is the witness to the

seizure panchnama at Ex.P.2 who has identified

the seizure of one axe and two chappals lying on

the scene of occurrence. In the cross-examination,

he has admitted that there were civil disputes

pending between the accused and PWs-3, 4 and 6

in respect of the landed properties.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

16. CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar is the eyewitness who

states that he had seen the quarrel between the

accused and CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and

CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar on 03.08.2014 in the

land of Rangaswamy. He has reiterated what has

been stated by CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna.

During the course of cross-examination, he has

admitted that CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah is his father-

in-law. He is not aware whether there is a civil

dispute between accused No.2 on the one hand

and PWs-4 and 5 on the other. He denied that

there was a criminal case pending against

CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah, filed by the wife of

accused No.3 in Cr.No.236/2013 and/or the

pendency of C.C.No.776/2015.

17. CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah has stated that when he

was in his land, there was a quarrel in the land of

CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy where CRL.A.No.100160/2017

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

Naveen Kumar were working and the accused

having come there, had picked up a quarrel with

CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna and CW.8/PW.8-

Naveen Kumar. On hearing the same, he went to

the land. He has reiterated the allegations made

by CW.1/PW.1-Harijana Thippanna. In the cross-

examination, he has admitted that CW.5/PW.3-

Prabhakar and CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa are the

children of his elder sister. He has

further admitted that he has no land near

Sy.No.69/D. He admitted that there are several

complaints pending in between the accused and

himself. He further admitted that relationship

between himself and the accused is strained.

18. CW-4/PW.5-Chinna Rangaswamy has stated that

he is having land bearing Sy.No.69/D measuring

50 Cents at Shankar Singh Camp. He has CRL.A.No.100160/2017

reiterated the allegations made by CW.1/PW.1-

Harijana Thippanna. In the cross-examination, he

has denied that the said land previously belonged

and 2. He admitted that accused No.2-

Lakshminarayana had filed a case against him and

others at Kurugodu police station. He has also

admitted that accused No.1-Chandrashekar

has filed a case against him and CW.9/PW.6-

Srinivasa and others. He further admitted that

father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and father of

CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa are brothers and there is a

dispute between them. CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa has

stated that at the request of the complainant, he

had written the complaint at Ex.P.1 as per the say

of the complainant. He, however, denied that the

signature on the said complaint belongs to him but

later again he has stated that the signature CRL.A.No.100160/2017

belongs to him. During the course of cross-

examination, he has denied that his services in

KSRTC were terminated. He has admitted that

CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar is his younger brother. He

has denied that CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah is his elder

sister's husband. He states that he does not know

were brothers. He denies any knowledge of civil

suit having been filed by CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar

against accused Nos.1 and 2. He admits that the

accused had filed a criminal case against him and

others in Cr.No.214/2014 which was after he had

filed a complaint under Section 307 of IPC against

the accused. He admits that accused No.2-

Lakshminarayana had filed a case against him and

others in Cr.No.236/2014. He states that he does

not know if there are about 10 cases which had

been filed by accused against him. He however CRL.A.No.100160/2017

admits that he does not have any cordial

relationship with the accused. He denies that any

incident had taken place and/or the complainant

requested him to write a complaint and he wrote

the complaint by himself. He further states that he

does not know about opening of a rowdy-sheet

against him in Kurugodu police station.

19. CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni is the ASI,

Kurugodu police station. He has deposed that on

03.08.2014 at 6:30 a.m. the complainant came to

the police station and lodged the written complaint

which was registered by him in

Cr.No.213/2014, directed the constable to take the

FIR to the Court. He has identified the complaint

as Ex.P.1. During the course of cross-examination,

he has stated that no one had come along with the

complainant to the police station. He has however

admitted that CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa and CRL.A.No.100160/2017

CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar are brothers and

CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah is their relative. He further

admitted that there is a civil dispute regarding

Sy.No.69/D between CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa,

CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar, CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah

and the accused. He has further stated that he is

aware of 8 cases filed against CW.6/PW.4-

Krishnaiah in Kurugodu Police Station. He however

denied that the present complaint was filed at the

instance of CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3-

Prabhakar and CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah.

20. CW.8/PW.8-Naveen Kumar is the driver. He has

stated that he does not know about the incident

and hence, the Public Prosecutor sought

permission of the Court to treat him as hostile and

cross- examined. All the suggestions made to him

were denied by him. Nothing much was elicited

from him during the course of cross-examination.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

In the course of the cross-examination by the

counsel for the accused, he has admitted that

there is enmity between the accused and

CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa. He has admitted that in

view of the same, CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa has got

the complainant to file the complaint against the

accused.

21. CW.14/PW.9-N.Rudramuni, is the Deputy

Superintendent of Police. He has stated that he

has taken up further investigation of the case from

CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni on 03.08.2014. He

went to the spot and conducted Spot Mahazar. He

seized the axe and two chappals, recorded the

statement of witnesses, had drawn the sketch of

the spot, obtained Caste Certificate of the accused

and the complainant from the Tahsildar, obtained

the Wound Certificate, completed

investigation and filed charge-sheet. In the cross-

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

examination, he has denied all the suggestions.

He has admitted that M.Os.1 and 2 could

be generally found in the house of any

agriculturist. He has denied the suggestion that no

one had given a statement before him. He has

stated that he does not know any dispute

regarding the land between the accused and

CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa. He has denied that false

charge-sheet had been filed.

22. CW.12/PW.10-Dr.Rangaswamy is the doctor who

examined the complainant on 03.08.2014 at 11:30

a.m. He found a lacerated wound in the middle of

the head measuring 6 x 4 cms and also contusion

on the back measuring 6 cms which are simple

injuries and as such, he has issued the Wound

Certificate as per Ex.P.8. He admits certain

overwriting in the Wound Certificate from 7:30

p.m. to 7:30 a.m. He admits his overwriting as CRL.A.No.100160/2017

regards the injury caused on the head as also the

contusion. He states that he has not been shown

any weapons which could have caused the injuries.

23. These being the depositions, Ex.P.1 is the

complaint, Ex.P.2 is the panchnama of the spot,

Ex.P.3 is the Caste Certificate, Ex.P.4 is the FIR,

Ex.P.5, the statement of PW-8 marked during the

cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, Ex.P.6

is the sketch of the spot, Ex.P.7 is the RTC extract

of the land, Ex.P.8 is the Wound Certificate. M.O.1

being the axe and M.O.2 being the two chappals.

24. Re-appreciation of all the evidence on record

would indicate that there are disputes as regards

the land where the incident occurred between

CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar,

CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah and accused No.1-

Chandrashekhar and accused No.2-

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

Lakshminarayana. The said dispute had resulted in

filing of various complaints and suits among

themselves.

25. The accused during the cross-examination of all

the witnesses have put forward the theory that the

complaint had been filed against the accused only

to try and make the accused to come to the terms

with CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa, CW.5/PW.3-Prabhakar

and CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah by making use of the

complainant who is their labourer/employee to file

a false complaint. Even the complainant is not

clear as regards the complaint.

26. It is also admitted that the complaint was drafted

by CW.9/PW.6-Srinivasa and it is the said

complaint which was presented before

CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni by the complainant.

CRL.A.No.100160/2017

27. The medical evidence also is not trustworthy.

There is lot of overwriting in the wound certificate.

The doctor has not opined as to the manner in

which the injury has been caused or can be

caused. The doctor has also admitted that he has

given the Wound Certificate at the instance of the

police.

28. CW.13/PW.7-R.Rudramuni, the ASI has

categorically stated about the 8 cases being

pending against CW.6/PW.4- Krishnaiah and the

civil dispute regarding Sy.No.69/D where the

incident occurred.

29. The injured eye-witness testimony is

untrustworthy, since he has acted as per the

instructions of his employer who had a dispute with

the Accused. If that testimony is discarded, more

so, since he did not support the case of the CRL.A.No.100160/2017

prosecution in his deposition but only supported

partially after being treated as hostile during the

course of cross examination, there are several

loopholes and lacunas in the case of the

prosecution.

30. The witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution. The prosecution has been unable to

drive home the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, we are of the opinion

that the accused are not guilty of the offences

alleged against them. The trial Court has rightly

acquitted the accused of the offences alleged by

extending benefit of doubt.

31. There being no grounds made out in the present

appeal to prove the guilt of the accused, the

appeal as filed by the State would have to be CRL.A.No.100160/2017

dismissed. In view of the above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal as filed is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Jm/-