Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the trial court should have been most circumspect in appreciating Ex.P-20. That even though the trial court has recorded its reasons to reject Ex.P-20, but it does not appear to satisfy the requirements of law.

7. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.

8. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. PWs-2 and 3 are her sons. PW-1 has narrated in her evidence that her husband used to contest for elections and since, he was a leader, he had lots of friends and lots of enemies. There was a family dispute with accused No.2. They were not on cordial terms. That on the date of the incident, she heard a lot of galata and went to the spot along with PWs-2 and 3. They saw that the accused were assaulting her husband and she was pulled away by accused Nos.5 and 7. Her sons went away apprehending assault. Thereafter, she informed the police and her brother about the incident over telephone. The police came to the spot after one hour. That they came in a police jeep. When the police had come to the spot, neither the Police Inspector nor other police officials asked her or her sons about the incident. Her husband had lost consciousness. The police gave water to her husband and thereafter, he regained consciousness. When he regained consciousness, the police enquired with him with regard to the incident. They did not record any statement. Thereafter, the deceased along with the injured were shifted to the hospital at Guttal. Therein the statement of the deceased was recorded. The same was regarded as complaint in terms of Ex.P-20. Thereafter, he was shifted to the Civil Hospital at Haveri. On his death, the same was treated as dying declaration.

11. PWs-4 and 5 are eye-witnesses. They have partly supported the case of the prosecution and have denied the rest of the case. Hence, they were treated as hostile. PW-6 is another alleged eye-witness who has turned hostile. PWs-7 and 8 are the panchas to inquest. PWs-9 and 10 are the panchas to the spot mahazar/Ex.P-5 and seizure panchanamas/Exs.P-6 & 7 in respect of MOs-2 to 8 and MOs-9 to 13 respectively. They have also turned hostile. PWs-11 and 12 are also alleged eye-witness who have turned hostile. PW-13 is the driver of the tractor, who has also turned hostile. PWs-14 to 17 are also witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs-18 to 21 spoke about the previous enemity between the deceased and accused No.1. They spoke about the motive for commission of the offence. They too have not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW-22 is not relevant to the case of the prosecution. He has only narrated with regard to attending the Vemana Jayanti prior to the incident. PW-23 is said to be the eye-witness who has also turned hostile. PW-24 is the driver of the Matador van who took the deceased to Haveri from Guttal Hospital. PW-25 is the Head Constable who took the first information report to the Magistrate. PW-26 is the Head Constable who recorded the dying declaration. PW-27 is the doctor who has issued the wound certificate of PWs-1 and 2. PW-28 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and issued the injury certificate of PW-3. PW-29 is the Station House Officer who recorded the phone call of the incident. PW-30 is the Police Constable who took the articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-31 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who apprehended the accused Nos.5 and 7 and produced them before the Court. PW-32 is the Police Sub-Inspector who registered the case and was also present when the dying declaration was recorded. He has also conducted part of the investigation. PW- 33 is the Circle Police Inspector, who conducted the rest of the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. PW-34 is the officer of the KPTCL who has given evidence with regard to the existence of electric light at the time of the incident in terms of his report / Ex.P-32. PW-35 is the Head Constable who apprehended the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 to 10. PW-36 is the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department, who prepared the sketch of scene of offence as per Ex.P-34.

27. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order:

ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 14th June 2006 passed in Sessions Case No.59 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Haveri, so far as the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed;