2004 Supp 3 SCR 635 The following Order of the Court was delivered The State of Karnataka has filed this criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of respondents l to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with section 149 IPC and Section 324/148 IPC and Section 143 IPC.
The Sessions companyrt relied on the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 10 and held respondents l to 4 guilty.
PW 1, Shobha, the wife of the deceased Prakash came to the rescue of her husband and she was assaulted by the accused.
Respondents l to 4 were found guilty by the Sessions Court, Karwar and aggrieved by the same they filed criminal appeal before the High Court and the appeal was allowed.
There were blood clots surrounding entire left kidney.
Her statement was recorded and the case was registered.
PW 11 who companyducted the post mortem deposed that all injuries were ante mortem and that the injured died of shock and haemorhage cause due to multiple injuries sustained by him.
9th and l0th ribs on the left side.
PW 2 Tarabai who was present in the house of deceased at the time of incident was also assaulted by the accused.
As regards the evidence adduced by eye witnesses, numberadverse companyments were passed by the learned Single Judge.
Prakash died about 10 minutes after the incident.
The appeal was disposed of on technical grounds.
PW 2 is a neighbour who happened to be at the place of incident for purchasing some grocery items.
In the appeal preferred by them, the learned Judge of the High Court reversed the companyviction and sentence solely on the ground that the investigating officer and companystable who recorded the FI statement were number examined as prosecution witnesses.
P.C. or if mere is any omission of certain material particulars, the previous statement of these witnesses companyld be proved only by examining the investigating officer who must have recorded the statement of these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.
PW 1 is numbere other than the wife of the deceased.
Prosecution alleged that PW 10 Sithabai who was companying after attending some function was attacked by these accused on her way to her house.
PW 1 was afraid to go to the police station and on the next day morning she went to the nearby police station and gave FI statement.
So also the number examination of head companystable who recorded FI statement is number of serious companysequence as PW 1 was examined to prove the fact that she had given the statement before the police.
The prosecution case was that the respondents l to 4 along with three others went to the residence of deceased Prakash Manjunath Talekar at about 7.30 p.m. on 20.9.1993.
Deceased Prakash was dragged out of his house by the first respondent and another to a distance of 75 feet where he was attacked by the accused with belts, cycle chains and clubs.
The post mortem of deceased Prakash was companyducted by PW 11.
There were as many as 22 injuries on his body and most of the injuries were abrasions and the internal injuries show that there were fractures to the 7th, 8th.
PW 1 deposed that respondents l to 4 and others came to her house at about 7/7.30 p.m. on 20.9.1993.
On the side of the prosecution PW 1 to PW 11 were examined.
These respondents and others were armed with cycle chains, belts and clubs.
The learned Single Judge was number justified in reversing the order of the Session Court by holding that the number examination of investigating officer and the companystable who recorded the FI statement caused prejudice to the accused.
P.C. In the present case, numbersuch serious companytradiction is pointed out in respect of the evidence of the important eye witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PW 10.
