Judgment:
1.This appeal is by the State against the judgment of acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2004 on the file of PrI.Sessions Judge. Mysore dated 25lh November 2004. reversing the judgment of conviction in C.C.No.20/2003 dated 17.1.2004 on the file of J.M.F.C., K.R.Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 341. 323. 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2.Saligrama Police charge sheeted the respondent Nos. 1and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341. 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3.Case of the prosecution is that, at about 7.30 a.m. on 10.10.2002. accused Nos.1 and 2 at Mundoor village with a common intention picked tip a quarrel with PW-1 in connection with the flowing of water in the canal.Complainant saw the accused diverting the canal water to their land en questioning, accused Nos.l and 2 assaulted him, he fell down and sustained grievous injury with dislocation of hip joint.
4.Police on investigation filed the charge sheet. Before the trial court, the prosecution to prove the charge examined PWs- .1 to 6 and marked Exs.Pl to P4. Trial court on appreciation of the evidence convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 341 and 325 of IPC, as against which the accused filed an appeal before the appellate court. 'ITie appellate court on reappreoiation of the evidence of PWs-1 and5 reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2. as against which, the State has filed this appeal.
5.The entire ease of the prosecution is based on the evidence of PW-1 - injured complainant and PW-5 - Doctor. PW-1 alleges that, his land and the land of accused Nos.l and 2 are side by side and there is a long standing dispute as regard to the sharing of water. When he saw the accused diverting the water on the day of incident, he questioned them, on questioning, accused Nos.l and 2 assaulted and he fell down, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury. PW-5 has stated that, PW-1 has suffered swelling and tenderness over the pelvic area. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that, it is possible that if a person falls on the ground, there is likelihood to sustain such injury.
6.In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that he is 75 years' aged person and on the previous day. there was a rain and a suggestion is also made that he fell down.The appellate court while reappreciating the evidence, considering the circumstances that, there was a long standing dispute between the accused and PW-1 and also considering the discrepancy as regard to the allegation in the complaint arid the evidence of PW-1 particularly the place of incident and the evidence of doctor - PW-5 stating that sucn injur/ is possible even if a person falls on the ground and that no external injury is found on the person of PW-1. found that, though PW-1 is an injured witness and his evidence requires to be carefully considered, however, when there is no other evidence corroborating his evidence and considering the motive, the appellate court found that the prosecution has not. proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Even on reconsideration and reappreciation of the entire evidence, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed.