Karnataka High Court
The State By Mandya East vs Sri Santhosh @ Bathas on 21 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
CRL.A No.795 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.795 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE BY MANDYA EAST
POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALROE-01.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by RUPA V (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI. SANTHOSH @ BATHAS
S/O JAYARAMU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O. HOUSE NO.156, 7TH CROSS
SWARNASANDRA
MANDYA CITY-571401.
2. SRI. MAHESHA @ CHAPATHI
@ DARSHAN
S/O RAMESHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. HOUSE NO.320 , 5TH CROSS
SWARNASANDRA, MANDYA CITY 571401.
3. SRI. MANU
S/O CHIKKAPUTTA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. HOUSE NO.289, 4TH CROSS
SWARNASANDRA, MANDYA CITY 571401.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
CRL.A No.795 of 2017
4. SRI. VIJAYA @ VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O. ANKADASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O. HOUSE NO.32, 2ND CROSS
SWARNASANDRA, MANDYA CITY 571401.
5. SRI. DEEPAK KUMAR
S/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. HOUSE NO.354,
OPP. SHANIDEVARA TEMPLE
7TH CROSS, SWARNASANDRA
MANDYA CITY 571401.
6. SRI. PUTTARAJU
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O. 3RD CROSS, OPP LABOUR COLONY
MANDYA CITY 571401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADV., FOR R2 & R5
SRI. SACHIN V.R. ADV., FOR R1, R3 & R6
SRI. B.M. LOKESH, ADV., FOR R4)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITAL DATED 08.09.2016
PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MANDYA IN
S.C.NO.114/2011 THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147,
148, 326, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.
Date on which appeal is 17.01.2024
reserved for judgment
Date on which 21.02.2024
judgment is
pronounced
THIS CRL.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
CRL.A No.795 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the State questioning the
correctness of the judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2016
passed in S.C.No.114/2011 by the I Addl. District and
Sessions Judge at Mandya.
2. Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are
that on 14.01.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. R.Raghavendra,
C.T.Anthony Vinod Varghese, Rajesh, Naga, Keshava and
Ajith were decorating in Ganesha temple situated at
Swarnasandra in Mandya city. At that time, Vijaya accused
No.4 came to the said place and demanded Ajith to repay the
loan amount. The said Ajith informed that the entire
amount had been repaid. At that time, heated exchange of
words took place between accused No.4 and Ajith.
Sri.R.Raghavendra, Sri.C.T.Anthony and Sri.Ajith went to
the Police Station and lodged a complaint. It is the further
case of the prosecution that R.Raghavendra, C.T.Anthony
and Ajith were sitting near Computer Centre which is near
Rangamandira of Swarnasandra. At about 9.30 p.m.,
accused came near them and questioned about the lodging
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
of the complaint against them. At that time, accused No.1
Santosh stated that he would finish off Ajith, raised a long
and made an attempt on Ajith. R. Raghavendra and
C.T.Anthony started running towards 8th Cross Road.
Accused No.1, tried to assault Ajith on his neck with the
long. At that time, C.T.Anthony stretched his left hand to
prevent the said assault as a result of which he sustained
grievous injuries on his left hand. Accused Nos.2 to 6
assaulted Ajith with hockey sticks and caused injuries on
face, head and forearm and fled away in a Maruti Omni car
bearing No.KA-2 N-5759. The injured Ajith and C.T.Anthony
took treatment at different hospitals. The police completed
the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
326, 307 read with 149 of IPC.
3. The Trial Court framed the charges against the
accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences charged
against them. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses as
PW-1 to PW17, marked 29 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
and material objects as MO-1 to MO-12. The accused did
not adduce any evidence but got marked the documents in
the cross-examination while as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-10. The Trial
Court, on appreciation of evidence has come to a conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and proceeded to acquit the accused.
4. The Trial Court recorded the reasons that the
injured and eye witnesses i.e. PWs-1 to 5 are not consistent,
there are a number of discrepancies in their evidence. The
Trial Court held that PWs-1 to 5 are the interested witnesses
and no independent witness has been examined. The Trial
Court further recorded that as per the evidence of PW-2, he
and Ajith have taken treatment from PW-8. However, PW-8
deposed that he provided first aid treatment to PW-2 and
Ajith and noted the injuries. PW-8 stated that there was
alcohol smell in the breathe of the injured. He further stated
that there were no blood injuries on the injured and the
investigating officer did not show the weapons MOs-1 to 8 to
him, did not seek his opinion and also did not receive any
wound certificate. The Trial Court further reasoned that the
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
injuries suffered by PW-2 are grievous in nature and the
weapon from which such injuries were caused should have
contained blood stains. The prosecution sent MO-1 for FSL
examination and seized the clothes worn by PW-2 which
contained blood stains. The seized clothes and the blood
sample of PW-2 were sent to FSL. The FSL report was also
not placed before the Court. However, the accused produced
the FSL report during the recording of Section 313
statement. The FSL report indicates that the blood found on
item Nos. 1 and 2 are of human blood of B Group (of PW-2)
and blood found on the seized clothes are of O Group. The
Trial Court further observed that there are a number of
contradictions in the medical evidence on record. The
prosecution did not cite the injured Ajith as a witness on the
ground that he was unable to appear before the Court to
depose. However, the accused produced the certified copies
of the documents of other proceedings which indicate that
Ajith had participated in other proceedings at the relevant
point of time. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that
there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
witnesses. PWs-1 to 5 are interested witnesses. The
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt and accorded the benefit of doubt in favour of the
accused and proceeded to acquit them from the offences
charged against them.
5. We have heard Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the appellant, Sri.Sachin V.R,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6,
Sri.M.Y.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 and 5 and Sri.B.M.Lokesh, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4.
6. Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted
that the Trial Court committed a grave error in disbelieving
the evidence of PWs-1 to 5 as they are the eye witnesses to
the incident. PW-2 and one Ajith have suffered grievous
injuries. PW-2 narrated the incident in detail which can be
corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses and the
medical evidence on record. The evidence on record clearly
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
establishes that accused, with a common intention of
causing grievous hurt and murder, came to the place and
assaulted PW-2 and one Ajith and caused grievous injuries.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined the eye witnesses, mahazar witnesses and also the
doctors who treated PW-2 and one Ajith. The Trial Court
has given much weightage to the minor discrepancies in the
evidence of PWs-1 to 5 and has come to the erroneous
conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
7. It is submitted that the medical evidence on
record compared with the oral evidence of PW-2 and the
injuries sustained by PW-2 and Ajith clearly establishes the
guilt of the accused. Learned High Court Government
Pleader further argued that PW-2 clearly stated that the
accused picked up a quarrel at the first instance and
thereafter, again they came back in the night around 9.30
p.m. armed with deadly weapons and caused grievous
injuries on him and Ajith. The evidence of PW-2
corroborates with the evidence of PWs-8 and 11 to 13.
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
However, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence
available on record in its proper perspective. The Trial Court
grossly erred in holding that the documents at Exs.D5 to
D10 produced by the accused during the recording of
Section 313 statement disproved the case of prosecution.
The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the
doctors who have deposed that the injured Ajith was not in a
position to depose before the Court. She seeks to re-
appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution by
setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and by
convicting the accused for the offences charged against
them.
8. Per contra, Sri.Sachin V.R., learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6, Sri.M.Y.Srinivas, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 5 and Sri.B.M.Lokesh,
learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submit that the
Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence gave a definite
finding that there were material contradictions in the
evidence available on record. It is submitted that two
incidents took place as per the case of the prosecution. First
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
one around 8.30 p.m when the accused No.4 insisted
injured Ajith to repay the amount which has been reported
by them before the police and again at around 9.30 p.m, the
accused came back with deadly weapons and assaulted PW-
2 and one Ajith causing grievous injuries to them and
thereafter they have taken treatment. However, the evidence
of PWs-1 to 5 are inconsistent with regard to the incident
and the injuries sustained by PW-2 and Ajith.
9. It is further submitted that PW-17 stated that
Ajith was unfit to give evidence. However, the very said Ajith
appeared and participated in other judicial proceedings at
the relevant time and the accused have placed the certified
copies of the documents at the time of recording Section 313
statement of the accused which falsifies the case of
prosecution. It is also submitted that the prosecution did
not examine any independent witnesses and PWs-1 to 5
were the interested witnesses. PWs-1 to 5 have stated that
there were around 30 persons present at the time of
incident. Nothing prevented the prosecution from examining
the independent witnesses. It is also submitted that PW-8
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
who examined the injured Ajith, has not mentioned with
regard to the head injuries. PW-11 stated that the injured
Ajith was brought to the hospital on 15.11.2011 i.e. on the
next day and was given treatment. However, there are
contradictions in the treatment given to the injured Ajith.
He argued that there are material contradictions with regard
to timings, assault and injuries suffered by PW-2 and Ajith
at the hands of the accused. It is contended that the
prosecution did not produce the FSL report before the Court
for the reason best known to them. The accused placed the
said document before the Court which falsifies the case of
prosecution. It is further contended that the impugned
judgment of the Trial Court is a well reasoned judgment and
does not call for any interference. The Trial Court noticed
major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and
lapses on the part of the investigating officer and gave the
benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, they seek to
dismiss the appeal.
10. We have heard the arguments of the learned High
Court Government Pleader, learned counsel for the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and 5, learned counsel for the respondent
No.4 and perused the impugned judgment and the entire
evidence available on record.
11. The prosecution examined PW-1 who is the
complainant. He stated that he knew the accused, his
friends PWs-2 to 5 and Ajith. He stated that two years ago
around 6.30 to 7 p.m. he along with PWs-2 to 5 and Ajith
were decorating near the Ganesha temple at Swarnasandra,
Mandya. At that time, accused Nos.2 to 4 came and asked
him as to why he is staring at them and they assaulted him
by hand. Thereafter, he went to the police station and
lodged a complaint against them at Ex.P1. He stated that
again on the same day at around 9 to 9.30 p.m. when he
along with PWs-2 to 5 were near Swarnasandra
Rangamandira, the accused Nos.1 to 4 came with hockey
sticks and long and asked as to why he had given complaint
against them. He stated that the accused No.1 lifted the
long and tried to assault Ajith. At that time, PW-2 raised his
left hand resulting in injury to his hand. Accused Nos.2 and
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
4 assaulted Ajith with the hockey stick on his head. Ajith
fell down and accused fled away from the place leaving
behind the weapons. The accused came walking with one
long, chopper and four hockey sticks and thereafter, PWs-2
to 4 took PW-2 and injured Ajith on motorcycle to the
District Hospital, Mandya. On the said day, PW-2 has been
sent to Apollo Hospital, Mysuru and injured Ajith to
Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru for further treatment. He
stated that the said incident has taken place as there was
money transaction and past enmity. He stated that he gave
the complaint on the said night at Ex.P2. He stated that the
police received the complaint in the hospital and on the next
day, they came to the spot and drew mahazar in the
presence of PWs-3 and 6 and recovered blood stained soil,
long and hockey sticks as per mahazar at Ex.P3. He
identified the chopper marked as MO-1. He stated that one
hockey stick was broken and other hockey sticks have been
identified as MOs-2 to 6. He identified the blood stained soil
and the soil kept in two different boxes marked as MOs-7
and 8. He stated that he showed the place of occurrence of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
incident near the Ganapathi temple in the presence of PWs-
3 and 6 and drew mahazar at Ex.P4. The police took the
photographs of the two places, photograph taken near
Ganapathi temple was marked as Ex.P5 and remaining 5
photographs taken near Rangamandira were marked as
Exs.P6 to 10. He stated that the injured Ajith was in coma
for more than 3 months and was an inpatient for 6 months
in Columbia Asia Hospital and his mental condition was not
stable. In the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that his
house and Ajith's house were nearby and there were other
houses. He stated that he went to the police station which
was 3/4 k.m. far from the said place and gave a complaint.
He stated that he did not notice whether the ASI was present
in the police station or not. He stated that he was in the
police station for 3 to 3 1/2 hours. He further stated that he
along with Ajith and PW-2 went to the police station and
stayed in the police station for 3 to 3 1/2 hours i.e till 6 to
6.30 p.m. Thereafter, they came back from the police
station. He denied that they had consumed alcohol. He
stated that they took the injured to the hospital on the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
motor bike. He stated that while the accused tried to
assault PW-2, he ran towards PW-2 and thereafter, the
accused assaulted Ajith and he screamed. Then he went to
Ajith and Ajith fell down and thereafter, other friends have
arrived. No one from the neighbourhood came to the place
for rescue. PWs-3 to 5 arrived and he informed them as to
how the incident took place and requested them to take the
injured to the hospital. He stated that the clothes of PW-2
were blood stained and Ajith had no blood injuries. He
denied the suggestion that a criminal case is registered in
the Mandya East police station against him, PWs-4 and 5.
He admitted that he is accused No.2 in Crime No.569/2009.
He identified the certified copy of FIR and charge sheet
marked at Ex.D3. He denied the suggestion that PW-2 and
Ajith were drunk and fell down from the motor bike and
sustained injuries. He stated that PW-2 and Ajith were
unconscious till they were taken to the hospital. He stated
that when the accused tried to assault Ajith, he ran towards
7th Cross and PW-2 ran behind him and he also ran behind
PW-2. The accused chased Ajith and assaulted him. He
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
stated that while running their faces were on the same
direction. He stated that he saw the police in the hospital
and the next day at the time of drawing the mahazar and
thereafter, he went to the police station at around 8 to 8.15
a.m. to report the 2nd incident and PW-3 Rajesh was with
him and they were in the police station till afternoon.
12. On perusal of evidence of PW-1, it is evident that
PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he went to
the police station at about 6.30 p.m. and they were in the
police station for 3 to 3 1/2 hours. Then the question would
arise with regard to their re-assembly near the
Rangamandira at 9.30 p.m. which creates the doubt in the
statement of PW-1. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has
stated that he went to the police station around 8 to 8.30
a.m. on the next day to report the second incident.
However, Ex.P2 is the information with regard to the second
incident recorded by the police on 14.11.2011 at 11 p.m.
PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that after the incident
PWs-3 to 5 came to the place and he explained how the
incident took place and requested them to take the injured
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
to the hospital. However, Ex.P2 the information of PW-1
furnished to the police indicates that Mahesh, Keshava and
Naga were present at the time of incident. The evidence of
PW-1 is inconsistent, contrary to the examination-in-chief,
cross examination and the information at Ex.P2. There is
inconsistency in the evidence of PW-1 with regard to running
of Ajith, PW-2 and himself from the place and assault on
PW-2 by the accused. PW-1 stated that when PW-2 had
screamed on assault, he went near to him and also saw that
accused were assaulting Ajith with hockey sticks. The said
statement is contrary to the evidence of PW-2. The Trial
Court has rightly observed that there is inconsistency in the
evidence of PWs-1 and 2.
13. PW-2 is the injured witness who stated that he
knew the accused and PWs-1, 3 to 5. He narrated the first
incident of 14.01.2011 as narrated by PW-1. He stated that
at around 9.45 p.m. accused No.1 tried to assault Ajith by a
long. At that time, he stretched his left hand consequent to
which he sustained grievous injuries on the left hand. He
stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 assaulted Ajith on his head
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
and caused injuries. He stated that accused saw PWs-3 to 5
coming to the said place and fleeing in a Maruti Omni car.
He stated that he and Ajith were taken to Government
Hospital, Mandya and thereafter were shifted to Columbia
Asia Hospital, Mysuru and further he was shifted to Apollo
Hospital, Mysuru. He stated that Ajith is not recovered and
is still unconscious and mentally unstable. In the cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that they were drunk
and sustained injuries due to a fall. He denied the
suggestion that they were the accused in Crime
No.549/2009. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, it is
evident that he along with PW-1 Raghavendra and injured
Ajith went to the police station to report the complaint of
first incident and were there in the police station for about
45 minutes. However, PW-1 stated that they were in the
police station for 3 to 3 1/2 hours while reporting the first
incident.
14. PW-3 Rajesh narrated the first incident similar to
that of PWs-1 and 2. With regard to the second incident, he
stated that at around 9.45 p.m. when they were proceeding,
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
they saw the accused chasing Ajith and accused No.1 was
holding an iron long in his hand. However, PW-1 in his
evidence stated that PW-3 was also present at the time of
first and second incidents. In the cross-examination, PW-3
stated that he saw Ajith running and PW-2 running behind
him and PW-2 screamed and fell unconscious. At that time,
he went and tried to help him. He also heard Ajith
screaming. He stated that both the injured fell after
sustaining grievous injuries and there was blood on the
ground. Later police came and collected blood stained soil.
However, the case of the prosecution is quite contrary as
Ajith did not sustain any blood injuries. Hence, the evidence
of PW-3 is contrary to the case of prosecution and PWs-1
and 2.
15. PW-4 Naga stated that as soon as he saw people
gathering near the Computer Centre, he went there. At that
time, accused No.1 was attempting to assault Ajith with an
iron rod, by mistake PW-2 was hit, he got injured and fell
down. PW-2 sustained grievous injuries on his hand. He
stated that he was scared and hence, he did not go near the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
place of incident. He stated that the accused threw the
weapons on the spot and fled. He stated that he has not
given the statement to the police and for the first time before
the Court he is narrating the incident. The evidence of PW-4
has no much relevance as he is not the eye witness to the
incident as he reached the place little later and saw that
Ajith and PW-2 sustained injuries at the hands of accused.
The evidence of PW-4 does not inspire the confidence of the
Court with regard to the narration of the incident, as the
same is contrary to the evidence of PWs-1 and 2.
16. The prosecution examined PW-5 who is stated to
be the eye witness to the incident. He stated that while he
was passing near the place of incident, he saw the accused
chasing PWs-1, 2 and Ajith. He stated that when Ajith
stopped near the 8th Cross, accused No.1 tried to assault
Ajith with an iron long and at that time, PW-2, in order to
stop the blow put his left hand which resulted in sustaining
grievous injuries. He stated that Ajith was assaulted with
hockey sticks. In the cross-examination, he stated that they
went to the police station to give complaint with regard to
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
the first incident at around 9 p.m. He stated that he, PWs-3
and 4 never went to stop the quarrel between the accused
and PWs-1, 2 and Ajith. He stated that on the next day
when the police came to the spot, no weapons were available
as they were seized by the police on the night of the incident.
As per the case of the prosecution, the police seized the
weapons on 15.01.2011 between 8.30 a.m. and 9.45 a.m.
The evidence of PW-5 is quite contrary to the seizure
mahazar on record. The Trial Court came to the conclusion
that the evidence of PW-5 cannot be believed as any ordinary
person under the circumstances narrated by PW-5 would
help his friends by rescuing them. The conclusion of the
Trial Court is based on the evidence of PW-5 comparing with
the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. The prosecution examined
PWs-6 and 7 but they have not supported the case of
prosecution as they were the witnesses for seizure mahazar
at Exs.P3 and P4.
17. PW-8 is the Doctor who gave treatment to PW-2
and Ajith immediately after the incident. He stated that he
gave the first aid treatment to both the injured. He stated
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
that when the injured were brought to him he found their
breath smelling of alcohol. He stated that the injured
informed him that the injuries were sustained due to
altercation. He stated that the injuries suffered by PW-2
were grievous in nature but no blood stained injuries were
found on Ajith. In the cross-examination, the said witness
stated that the weapons used for the commission of offence
were not shown to him and the investigating officer did not
receive the wound certificate from him. PW-8, in his cross-
examination clearly stated that MO-1 is a heavy cutting
weapon, one side of which is sharp and if anyone is
assaulted with the said weapon, there would be a bone
fracture. The Trial Court observed that the medical evidence
on record creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with
regard to the injuries suffered by PW-2 with MO-1. This
Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence is of the view that
the injury suffered by PW-2 would have been a serious
injury if it was caused by MO-1. Strangely the prosecution
did not produce FSL report pertaining to MO-1 i.e. long.
However, the same was placed on record by the accused.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
The FSL report clearly indicates that no blood stains were
found on MO-1. Hence, there is no co-relation with the
injury suffered by PW-2 and MO-1. PW-8 stated that Ajith
did not suffer any serious injury and was conscious. The
said evidence is contrary to the evidence of PWs-1 and 2.
Hence, there are number of contradictions between the
prosecution witnesses.
18. PW-9 is the witness for seizure mahazar at
Ex.P14, he did not support the case of prosecution. PW-10
doctor who collected the blood samples of PW-2. PW-11 is
the doctor who treated the injured PW-2 and Ajith and
issued the wound certificate at Ex.P17, he stated that PW-2
suffered fracture on his thumb and Ajith suffered grievous
injuries. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he is
not a permanent doctor at Columbia Asia Hospital. He
stated that he has not written the history of injuries in the
medical record and has not recorded that the injuries were
caused due to a hockey stick. The Trial Court rightly
disbelieved the evidence of PW-11 as the hospital does not
record the history for the injuries sustained by the injured.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
The said entries in the medical record were made at the
instance of the injured. PW-11 further stated that he has
not recorded the mental status of the injured and has not
written the discharge summary. He stated that at the time
of discharge, the mental status of the injured was stable and
good. The evidence of PW-11 is quite contrary to the theory
of the prosecution that the injured Ajith was unconscious
when he was taken to the hospital and his mental condition
has not improved thereafter also. Hence, he was not
examined before the Court. The treated doctor clearly
deposed that the mental condition of injured Ajith was quite
good at the time of discharge. PW-12, doctor who issued the
wound certificate pertaining to PW-2 as per Ex.P21 admitted
in the cross-examination that he has not indicated that the
injury suffered is a deep cut injury. PW-12 doctor working
at BGS Hospital, Mysuru stated that he gave treatment to
PW-2 on 15.01.2011 at 3.30 a.m. He further stated that
PW-2 was brought from Columbia Hospital to their hospital.
The evidence of PW-11 indicates that PW-2 took treatment at
Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru at 11.45 p.m. on
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
14.01.2011, but in the cross-examination he has stated that
it was on 15.01.2011 and the medical record at Ex.P-17 also
indicates the date as 15.01.2011. The evidence of PWs-11
and 12 are quite contrary with regard to providing treatment
to PW-2. The prosecution examined PWs-13 and 14, the
doctors working at Columbia Asia Hospital, who have stated
that they have treated injured Ajith. PW-13 in his cross-
examination stated that he has not examined the medical
records of injured Ajith as he was in ICU and has not
examined him. PW-14 issued a letter at Ex.P24 and gave an
opinion that Ajith is not in a position to give any statement.
The medical evidence on record indicates that PW-14 is not
the treated Doctor who has issued Ex.P24. PW-17 issued a
report at Ex.P29 stating that Ajith was not in a position to
give evidence before the Court. The evidence on record
clearly indicates that the injured Ajith at the relevant point
appeared in S.C. No.217/2012 and deposed as PW-5.
Similarly, in C.C.No.863/2010 the said injured Ajith was
arrayed as accused and charges were framed against him.
The said injured Ajith who was accused No.2 appeared
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
before the Court and his plea was recorded by the said
Court. These evidences on record clearly indicates that the
mental condition of Ajith was good and he was capable to
give evidence and the theory of the prosecution that Ajith
was unable to depose before the Court has been falsified.
19. On re-appreciation of the material witnesses
examined by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered
view that there are number of inconsistencies and
contradictions between the oral testimony of the injured PW-
2 and PWs-1, 3 to 5 with regard to time of the incident,
nature of injures sustained by PW-2 and Ajith and treatment
taken by the injured in different hospitals. The prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution, for the reasons best known to it did not
examine any independent witness who has seen the incident
other than PWs-1 to 5 who were alleged to have been
present at the time of incident. The Trial Court, on
appreciation of the evidence has come to the conclusion that
the evidence of PWs-1 to 5 and the medical evidence are not
believable to show that PW-2 and Ajith suffered any injuries
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7504-DB
in the alleged incident due to assault by the accused
persons with weapons at MOs-1 to 6 and the evidence is not
the convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution. The
Trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused from the
offences charged against them by giving the benefit of doubt.
This Court, on appreciation of the entire evidence available
on record and for the reasons recorded supra concurs with
the conclusion and reasoning of the Trial Court.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
