The prosecution also examined two Doctors, PW 4 Doctor Sadanand Krishna Kamat and PW 5 Dr. N.K. Katri.
Nagaveni.
Charge was framed against the accused.
It was also proved that there was hostility between the parties and property disputes were going on in a Court of law.
The High Court heard the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor in favour of the appeal as also the learned companynsel representing the respondent accused.
To appreciate the case of the appellants, few relevant facts may be numbered.
The High Court merely repeated the findings recorded by the trial Court that the accused were acquitted for all the offences.
He also held that there were companytradictions in the depositions of eye witnesses and in the circumstances, it cannot be companycluded that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused persons also administered threat to kill Gopal Hegde.
Nagaveni, wife of PW 1 Gopal complainant.
Usual investigation was carried out by the police authorities.
The High Court observed that so far as the inconsistencies in the ocular evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 were companycerned, inconsistencies and companytradictions were on minor matters.
The trial Court was, therefore, number right in discarding the sworn testimonies of the witnesses when they were doubly supported and companyroborated from other evidence on record.
The Court also held that injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses were established from medical certificates issued by doctors as also from the testimony of doctors.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yellapur held that there was discrepancy between the medical evidence and ocular evidence.
The incident in question was clearly established.
It was the case of the prosecution that on January 04, 2000, at about 3.00 p.m., near Kallaimane Cross at village Tatagar, Taluka Yellapur, appellant accused attacked companyplainant Gopal Sitaram Hegde with stones and wooden sticks.
The accused pleaded number guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to prove the case against the accused examined eight witnesses including three injured witnesses, PW 1 Gopal Sitaram Hegde complainant, PW 2 Nagesh Ganapati Bandekar, companylie of PW 1 and PW 3, Smt.
All the accused thereby companymitted offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC .
The said order is challenged in the present proceedings.
They also attacked and caused injuries to Nagesh Ganapati Bandekar and Smt.
Accordingly, by the judgment and order dated March 27, 2001, he acquitted all the accused.
The State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order of acquittal preferred an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
775 of 2001.
K. Thakker, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant accused against the order of companyviction recorded by the High Court of Karnataka on February 06, 2002 in Criminal Appeal No.
