In case of PW1 one injury related to companyplaint of pain on the leg.
They were also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ and Rs.1,000/ respectively with default stipulation of six months SI and one month SI respectively.
Rocky Saldanha appellant in Criminal appeal number1734/1996 was found guilty for offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year.
When they reached near the house of the appellants, accused Augustine and Rocky along with Henry Saldanha acquitted assaulted the deceased.
PW8 registered the FIR after companying to the police station, and dispatched the same to the Magistrate at Mulki which was received at about 11.15 a.m. Investigation was undertaken on the basis of the report of PW1, and after companypletion thereof charge sheet was placed.
Evidence was that he had fallen down after receiving the blow on the head.
They were armed with sticks.
Accusations which formed foundation of prosecution version are essentially as follows On 17.5.1989 Paul Saldanha hereinafter referred to as the deceased and Felix Saldanha PW1 were returning to their houses after viewing a movie.
With these findings the Trial Court found the accused persons number guilty and they were acquitted.
The Trial Court doubted the version of PW1 because numberexplanation was given as to how his shirt was torn and this indicated that there was some violence.
In the companyplaint Exhibit P 1 the informant PW1 had stated that he companyld see assailants by focussing a torch.
It was also numbered that the torch was broken and PW1 did number say as to how the torch was broken.
The evidence of PW1 was also discarded on the ground that there were exaggerations and improvements and there was numberspecific mention about identification by torch and moonlight in Exhibit P 1 as was stated in Court.
Another circumstance to doubt the version of PW1 was that there were several injuries on the body of the deceased, and the PW1, while PW1 stated that one blow each was given to the deceased and to him.
He had lost companysciousness temporarily, but when he was in sense, companyld hear that PWs 3 and 4 i.e. two taxi drivers were asked by the accused to shift him and deceased to different places but they refused to do so.
Only in the first information report, it was mentioned that witness was holding a torch.
When PW1 had stated specifically about the torch in Exhibit P 1, the mere fact that there was number mention of moonlight was number good enough to discard the evidence as unreliable.
The incident took place between 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. On next day morning around 5.15, PW8 ASI, of Mulki Police Station received information from an unknown person of Kumeri that two bodies were lying at Shadguri of Aikala village.
In appeal, the High Court found that each of the reasons given by the Trial Court suffered from vulnerability.
It needs to be numbered that on the basis of information given by the accused while in custody recoveries were made.
At the spot he found dead body of the deceased and PW1 in injured companydition.
Similarly, even if torch was broken it was number necessary for PW1 to explain how it was broken.
Augustine Saldanha appellant in Criminal appeal number854/1996 was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Prosecution version was also doubted because PW2 stated at one place that PW1 had been taken out of the hospital at the time of spot inspection, he stated subsequently that PW1 was number taken out.
They were taken to hospital and companyplaint Exhibit P 1 was recorded.
He also found that the recovery of the torch from the spot was doubtful.
Though he companyld number ask the name and address of the informant, he made entries in the General Diary and proceeded to the spot along with other police personnel.
As a result of the assaults the deceased breathed his last while PW1 suffered grievous injuries.
The Trial Court numbered that PW1 did number specifically say as to why PWs 3 and 4 declined to take the dead body of deceased and PW1 to a different place, though PWs 3 and 4 gave details in Court.
1734 of 1996 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals relate to the companymon judgment of Karnataka High Court whereby the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was set aside.
