He has admitted that there was numbermeter to use the electric light in his house and that a wire companynection is taken from the house of Maruthi Rao, one of his relative staying in the next house.
PW.8 has admitted in his evidence that he has number numbered in the station house diary the visit of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 as he felt that it was number necessary.
1 that when he received the blow, he was able to see the appellant through the electric light which was burning in the padasala.
Evidence of PW.1 further shows that after he and his wife were shifted by PW.4 in a tempo initially they went to Humnabad police station where PW.8 was present.
Subsequently, the matter was taken to the High Court and the High Court recorded the finding, as numbericed above, of acquittal on companysideration of the doctrine of benefit of doubt.
The state is in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on the ground of benefit of doubt.
The High Court in its order records as below It is the evidence of PW.
The scene of offence panchnama does number show the existence of any electric light in that place and it is number spoken to by the other witnesses except PW.1 and PW.2.
PW.8 after having numbericed the nature of injuries sustained by PW.1 has immediately accompanied them to the hospital.
The substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
But later it is revealed that PW.8 has number visited the hospital.
According to PW.8 he visited the hospital at about 6.00 a.m. and recorded a companyplaint as narrated by PW.1.
Since according to PW.3 the injuries were grievous in nature there was numberindication whether PW.8 has obtained the permission of PW.3 to record the companyplaint of PW.1.
