Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Lingaraj S/O Shivappa Banakar on 17 December, 2020
Author: Ravi.V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi. V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI. V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100219/2015
BETWEEN
State of Karnataka
Represented by the
Kaginele Police Station,
Through the Addl. State
Public Prosecutor,
Advocate General Office,
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench.
... Appellant
(By Shri A. Venkata Satyanarayana, HCGP)
AND
1. Lingaraj s/o Shivappa Banakar,
Aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2. Channabasappa s/o Shivappa Banakar,
Aged about 28, Occ: Agriculture.
Both are r/o Engalagondi village,
Taluk Byadagi, District Haveri.
... Respondents
(By Shri Nagaraj J. Appannavar, Advocate)
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)
and (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 05.08.2015 passed in
C.C.No.260/2012 by the learned J.M.F.C., Byadagi and to
convict the respondents/accused for the offences
punishable U/secs.323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
This appeal being reserved for judgment on
11.11.2020, this day, the court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging judgment dated 05.08.2015 in C.C. No.260/2012 passed by the JMFC, Byadagi, acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that a complaint was lodged at 2.00 p.m. on 15.04.2012 at District Hospital, Haveri by Irappa Banakar stating that on 14.04.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. when his wife Vishalakshi Banakar was fetching water from backyard to construction site of their house, accused No.1 abused her in vulgar language for passing through his land. Upo n 3 intervention by complainant, accused No.1 abused him also in vulgar language, tore his shirt, assaulted him with sickle. At the time of snatching the sickle, complainant's left index finger was injured. Complainant raised hue and cry. He was assaulted by accused on his waist, chest and hands inflicting internal injuries. Accused No.2 pulled hair of complaint's wife, abused her in vulgar language for stepping on the Nilgiri saplings and damaging them. Accused No.2 slapped her and also hit her on her back. At that time, some passersby came and prevented the assault. While leaving the spot, accused threatened complainant and his wife saying they would have done away with their lives, if they were not saved by others.
3. Based on said complaint, Crime No.37/2012 was registered by Kaginele Police and FIR was made over to the Court of Magistrate, without delay. After investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read 4 with Section 34 of IPC. After appearance, accused denied the charges and sought trial.
4. In support of the prosecution case, 8 witnesses were examined. The complainant was examined as PW-1; Pancha witness for seizure panchanama (Ex.P.2) was examined as PW-2; PW-3, wife of complainant and an injured witness. PW-4, Doctor, who examined complainant and his wife and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.3. PW-5 & PW-6 are eye witnesses. PW-7 is the Constable who recorded statement of complainant, on 15.04.2012, at District Hospital, Haveri. PW-8 is also an eye witness. Exhibits P.1 to P.3 were marked and material object was marked as M.O.1.
5. After completion of evidence, accused were explained about incriminating material against them. They denied it and did not offer explanation. Their statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) was recorded. Accused did not lead any evidence on their side. 5 Thereafter, trial Court framed following points for its consideration:
1. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.04.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ PÁV£É¯É ºÀ¢Ý ¥ÉÊQ EAUÀ¼ÀUÉÆA¢ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ RįÁè eÁUÉ EzÀÄÝ, D eÁUÉUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ d£ÀvÁ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ DVzÀÝjAzÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ D eÁUÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁAiÀÄ ºÁQ PÀ®Äè ªÀÄtÄÚ ºÁQ vÀÄA©zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃgÀÄ ºÁPÀ®Ä CAvÁ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É »vÀÛ® ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ ºÉÆAqÀPÉÌ ¤ÃgÀÄ vÀgÀ®Ä CAvÁ ¸Á.¸ÉÃ.£ÀA 4 £ÉÃzÀݪÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ DgÉÆæ 2£ÉÃzÀݪÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ¼É ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ºÉArÛ vÀ¯É PÀÆzÀ®Ä »rzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä eÁUÀzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀtÚ ¸ÀtÚ ¤Ã®Vj VqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀĽzÀÄ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÁPÀ ºÀvÁå¼À CAvÁ PÉʬÄAzÀ PÀ¥Á¼ÀPÉÌ, ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁ.zÀ.¸ÀA. PÀ®A: 323 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A: 34 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ RįÁè eÁUÉ EzÀÄÝ D eÁUÉUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ d£ÀvÁ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ DVzÀÝjAzÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ D eÁUÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁAiÀÄ ºÁPÀÄ PÀ®Äè ªÀÄtÄÚ ºÁQ vÀÄA©zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃgÀÄ ºÁPÀ®Ä CAvÁ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É »vÀÛ® ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ ºÉÆAqÀPÉÌ ¤ÃgÀÄ vÀgÀ®Ä CAvÁ ¸Á.¸ÉÃ.£ÀA.4 £ÉÃzÀݪÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ DgÉÆæ 1 £ÉÃzÀݪÀ£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠺ÉAqÀwUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ E°è ºÁ¬ÄzÀÄ CqÀØqÀ¨ÉÃqÁ CAvÁ, DUÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃV AiÀiÁPÀ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ CAvÁ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ ¹mÁÖzÀ DgÉÆæ 1 £ÉÃzÀݪÀ£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ §A¢AiÀiÁ CAzÀªÀ£Éà ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ PÀÄqÀUÉÆð¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ°PÉÌ §AzÁUÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ PÀÄqÀUÉÆî£ÀÄß 6 PÀ¹zÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ JqÀUÉÊ vÉÆÃgÀĨÉgÀ½UÉ vÀgÀazÀUÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁ.zÀ.¸ÀA.PÀ®A:324 ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A:34gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?\
3. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁ.zÀ.¸ÀA.PÀ®A:504 ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A: 34gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ, ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¨sÁ.zÀ.¸ÀA. PÀ®A:506 ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A: 34gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
5. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
After answering the above points in negative, trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused.
6. Assailing the reasons assigned by the trial Court, learned High Court Government Pleader ('HCGP') submitted that prosecution case is duly supported by evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, who are injured eye witnesses. Their evidence is corroborated by evidence of two other eye witnesses viz., PW-6 and PW-8. In addition, prosecution examined PW-4-Doctor, who examined the 7 complainant and issued wound certificate-Ex.P.3, stating that injuries noted therein are simple in nature and could be caused by any sharp object. Learned HCGP further submitted that the trial court discarded evidence of PW-8 merely on ground that his house was more than 300 ft. away from place of incident, even though said witness supported the prosecution case.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Nagaraj J. Appannavar submitted that impugned judgment passed by the trial Court was fully justified as the prosecution had failed to establish the material particulars of the incident, failed to explain various contradictions and also on the ground of delay in registering complaint. It was further submitted that there was an admitted ill-will between complainant and accused with regard to property, as father of complainant had contracted second marriage with accused No.2.He further submitted that there was contradiction in the evidence of PW-3 about the assault with sickle. It was further pointed out that P.W.4-Doctor 8 clearly mentioned in EX.P.3 that injuries are simple in nature. Though he stated such injuries can be caused by sickle, but, during cross-examination, he admitted that it can be caused due to other reasons also.
Learned counsel further pointed out that presence of PW-5 at the spot was not natural and doubtful as he was a resident of another village. There was no proper explanation by investigating officer about the same. Though learned counsel further submitted that evidence of PW-6 was not reliable, as he admitted in cross- examination that complainant is his brother's son and that between his house and complainant's house there are about 12 other houses. Therefore, presence of this witness, who is an interested witness, at the time of incident is doubtful. Further, PW-8 admitted that he was inside the house at the time of incident and came to the spot after hearing the commotion. On all the above grounds supported impugned judgment of acquittal. 9
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned judgment and record.
9. From the above, offences alleged against accused are Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC relates to causing hurt, causing hurt with dangerous weapon, causing insult with intention to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation respectively. In order to prove the same, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of five eye witnesses namely PW-1, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8. PW-2 and PW-5 are the pancha witnesses. PW-4 is the Doctor who examined the injured, and PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. Among them PW-2 and PW-5 did not support the prosecution case, while PW-8 was treated as partially hostile. Therefore, material witnesses for the prosecution are PW-1 and PW-3, who are the injured eye witnesses and PW-6 who corroborated the evidence of PWs-1 and 3, supported the prosecution case. 10
10. PW-1 in his evidence, stated that on 14.04.2012 at 3.00 p.m. when he and his wife PW-3 were in their backyard, accused came there. Accused No.1 abused PW-3 in vulgar language and quarreled with her. When PW-1 sought to intervene, A1 grabbed the collar of PW-1, abused him in vulgar language and assaulted him with a sickle. When PW-1 tried to snatch the sickle from A1, A1 bit him on his left hand index finger and right hand ring finger. At that time, PW-6 and PW-8 came to the spot and stopped the quarrel. While leaving the spot, the accused threatened PW-1 and PW-3 to take their life away and on that day, they were rescued by PW-6 and PW-8.
11. PW-1 states that immediately he went to the police station and filed complaint. Thereafter he went to the District Hospital, Haveri, got admitted and took treatment as an inpatient. He identified the complaint as Ex.P.1 and also the sickle as M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (for short 'APP') sought permission of 11 the Court to cross- examine the said witness by treating him partially hostile. During his cross-examination by APP, PW-1 admitted that he gave complaint on next day after the incident at District Hospital, Haveri. He further stated that he suffered injuries to his right hand fingers when he tried to snatch the sickle. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that accused No.2 was his father's wife and Accused No1 was her son. It was further elicited that mother of PW-1 was still alive. It was further elicited that during the lifetime of father of PW-1, himself and his mother were not residing in Ingalagundi. PW-1 also admitted that on account of his father married for the second time with A2, relationship between the accused and complainant (PW-1) were not cordial. However, said witness once again falls back to his original version regarding filing of complaint. He states that immediately after the incident, he first went to Kaginele police station gave complaint and thereafter went to District Hospital. He further stated that police had written the complaint as per his instructions, thereaftrer he went to district 12 Hospital Haveri. Though there are suggestions put to him regarding the complaint averments, accused denied the same. PW-1, however, admitted that sickle like M.O.1 are usually found in every household in the village.
12. PW-2, Veerabhadrappa Kalannavar, father of PW-3 and father-in-law of PW-1. However, he has denied any seizure by the police, denies seeing M.O.1 and also says that Ex.P.2 Panchanam-examination by APP nothing worthwhile was elicited from PW-2.
13. PW-3 Vishalakshi, wife of PW-1, complainant. She is also an injured eyewitness. In her evidence, she has stated that on 14.10.2012 when she was fetching water for the site which was under construction of a house, A1 abused her in filthy language. At that time PW-1 her husband came there and caught hold of hand of accused No.1 hand, in which he was holding a sickle. When he tried to snatch the sickle, he suffered injuries to 13 his right and left hand index fingers. At that time, accused NO.2 pulled her hair, hit PW-3 on her cheek, face and back and also abused her. At that time PW-6 and PW-2 came there and stopped their quarrel. The accused threatened to take her life away.
14. PW-3 states that PW-1 first went to the Kaginele Hospital and as he did not receive proper treatment, he went to District Hospital Haveri and remained there till 16.04.2012. Thereafter, he came and filed complaint. Two days after the incident, police came to the spot when PW-6 and his wife showed them the spot of the incident, at that time sickle was recovered. In her cross-examination by the APP (treating her as hostile) PW-3 admitted that spot of the incident was shown to police by herself. But, she denied her signature on Ex.P.2. During her cross-examination by the accused, she admits that she accompanied PW-1 when he went to Kaginele Police Station. She admits that Accused No.1 is her brother-in-law and Accused No.2 is her younger mother- 14 in-law and that no partition had taken place between complainant and accused. She admits that normally sickles like M.O.1 are found in every household. Though suggestions were made to PW-3 that the entire complaint averments were false and that a false case has been filed against the accused, but same was denied.
15. PW-4 Dr. Mahesh Bandi stated in his examination before the Court that on 14.04.2012 at about 6:50 p.m., he examined PW-1, who had come with history of assault. He found abrasion on the left index finger, pain over chest and waist and opined that injuries were simple in nature. He admitted his signature on Ex.P.3. Though he said that nature of injuries, dimensions and age were mentioned by him in the certificate Ex.P.3 and that they could be caused by M.O.1, during cross-examination he admits that injuries noted could also be caused due to fingers getting stuck in the door and when brakes are applied while sitting in a vehicle.
15
16. PW-5 Malleshappa Kallammanavar is a pancha witness for spot panchanama-Ex.P.2 and for identification of M.O.1. However, he deposed that as per spot shown by PW-3, Ex.P.2 was drawn. During cross-examination he admits that PW-2 is his brother and PW-3 is his daughter. He admits that he is a resident of Muththalli village in Hanagal Taluk and there was civil dispute between complainant and accused. But, in his further cross- examination he admits that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2 and he signed it in police station.
17. PW-6 Ningappa D. Banakar stated that on 14.04.2012 at 3.00 p.m. there was quarrel between accused and complainant in their backyard. Accused No.1 abused PW-3; Accused No.2 pulled PW-3's hair and hit her twice. At that time PW-1 was not present at the spot. After receiving information about the quarrel, he came to the spot. When Accused No.1 tried to assault PW-1 with sickle, PW-1 tried to snatch it. In that process, he sustained abrasion injuries to his left hand middle finger. 16 He further states that accused offered life threat to PW-1 and PW-3, and that himself and PW-8 stopped the quarrel. Thereafter PW-1 was sent to District Hospital, Haveri. PW-1 gave complaint. He identifies M.O.1 as the sickle used by A1.
18. In his cross-examination, he admits PW-1 is his brother's son. His house and house of PW-1 are in different areas. He denies a suggestion that he is giving false evidence and also denies that entire prosecution case is false. However, he admits that sickle like M.O.1 are found in everyone's household in the village.
19. PW-7 Y.D. Havanur, is the Police Constable, who was the SHO of Kaginele Police Station, on 15.04.2012. He deposed that after he received MLC report from District Hospital, Haveri he went there and recorded statement of PW-1 as per Ex.P.1 and came back to the police station, registered FIR in Crime No.37/2012 and forwarded it to the Court of the Magistrate. He says that on the next day he went to the spot and drew panchanama-Ex.P.2 in the 17 presence of PW-5 and PW-2-pancha witnesses and recovered M.O.1 from the spot. He says that the spot was identified by PW-3. He states that thereafter he recorded the statements of PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 and obtained Ex.P.3-wound certificate on 14.04.2012 and recorded further statement of PW-1. After investigation he file d charge sheet.
20. PW-8 is Shivaputragouda B. Patil, deposed that 14.04.2012 at 3:30 p.m. when he was inside his house, he heard someone quarrelling. When he went near the house of PW-1,he saw A1 and PW-1 were quarrelling. Accused No.1 was assaulting PW-1 with sickle -M.O.1. He further states that he stopped the quarrel, advised the parties and sent them away. At this stage, he was treated as partially hostile and was cross-examined by APP. In the cross- examination, the witness admits the prosecution case. But during cross-examination by the accused, it is elicited from PW-8 that his house is at a distance of about 300 ft. away from the spot.
18
21. From the above, it is seen that there is inconsistency regarding the presence of PW-1 along with PW-3 when A1 began quarreling with PW-3. There is inconsistency regarding the reason for PW-1 sustaining injuries to his fingers. Though there is contradiction regarding injuries sustained to the fingers, same is not a material contradiction. Though there is some consistency with regard to the assault or battering by the accused on the complainant, medical evidence on record is inconclusive to establish a link with the incident. As per the evidence of PW-4-Doctor, time of occurrence of the incident was 3.00 p.m. on 14.04.2012, but PW-1 was examined by PW-4 at 6.50 p.m. From Ex.P.3, it is seen that the injured had approached PW-4 suo-motu.
22. Yet another circumstance which is required to be considered is the glaring inconsistency with regard to explanation for delay in giving complaint. While PW-1 initially stated that immediately after incident he went to 19 the police station gave complaint and thereafter went to the District Hospital, Haveri. After being treated as partially hostile and subjected to cross-examination by APP, he admits that immediately after the incident he got admitted at District Hospital, Haveri and during treatment he gave statement as per Ex.P.1. But, during cross- examination on behalf of accused, he once again states that immediately after the incident, he went to Kaginele police station and lodged complaint. He states that complaint was written by the police as per his instructions and that after giving complaint, he went to District Hospital, Haveri.
23. Even PW-3 has also deposed that immediately after the incident PW-1 went to the police station to give complaint and that she had accompanied him. But, same is in stark contradiction for the prosecution case. This is one of the circumstances to be considered. Further, the above contradiction also gives rise to doubt about the explanation for delay in giving complaint, as the incident 20 occurred on 14.04.2012 at 3.00 p.m. but, complaint was registered at 2.00 p.m. on 15.04.2012.
24. Even with regard to the assault and injuries, there exists some contradiction. While it was stated in the complaint that Accused No.1 bit PW-1 on his fingers when PW-1 tried to snatch M.O.1-sickle from the hands of Accused No.1; at the time of recording evidence before Court, PW-1 states that injuries suffered by him were caused by sickle. But, as per Ex.P.3 and evidence of doctor-PW-4, all the injuries are simple in nature and the injuries on the fingers are bruises and not cut injuries. It is also elicited that as per the opinion of PW-4, injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 could also be caused due to some other reason than the assault. During cross-examination of PW-5, it is elicited that he is a resident of another village and also that he is the brother of PW-2 and father of PW-3. In the absence of any explanation regarding his presence at the spot on the date of incident, there would be some doubt about reliability of his evidence. Likewise, 21 it has been elicited from PW-8 that his house is at a distance of 300 ft. from the incident and therefore, his statement that he heard that accused No.1 and PW-1 quarreling with each other, when he was inside his house is doubtful. Even during cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that houses of PW-1 and PW-6 are in different areas. Therefore, even his presence at the spot on the date of the incident is also unbelievable. The further admission that PW-1 is his brother's son also gives rise to a doubt about said witness being an interested witness.
25. Yet another circumstance which is required to be considered is the admitted ill-will or strained relation between complainant and accused on account of father of PW-1 marrying Accused No.2 in second marriage during the lifetime of his mother and pendency of the dispute with regard to partition of the property.
26. The various inconsistencies and contradictions as noted above, when considered cumulatively, give rise to a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. 22 Therefore, accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
On examination of the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, same are with due reference to the evidence on record and conclusions drawn are proper and not perverse. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the appeal, hence same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVK