JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE material facts of the prosecution" case discloses that one Meenakshi (daughter of PW2) (injured eye-witness) fell in love with one Lokesh (Son of A5 ). PW1 (sister of Meenakshi) Chastised meenakshi for her love affair. But Meenakshi defying her parents, left the house, took shelter in the house of A1 who helped Meenakshi to elope with Lokesh and they got married. ( 2. ) ONE Manjamma is the deceased in the incident and she is wife of pw2. It is stated that Al was in love with one Shashikala (PW11 -daughter of one Raju). The parents of PW11 opposed the marriage with al and they have lodged the complaint against Al. In that transaction pw2 has supported Raju to lodge the complaint against Al. The daughter of said Meenakshi after her marriage with A5 was not on visiting terms with PW2 and other family members. On 5.8.2002 around 8 pm Al to A4 came along with A5 to the house of PW2. The A enquired PW2 as to whether he had seen Al to A4. in the market area of Sakleshpur in the morning of 5.8.2002. PW2 answered in the affirmative that he saw Al to A4 in the market area. Al to A4 were carrying chopper, they felt that it is a false answer and started assaulting PW2 who tried to escape and fell in the drain pit. The deceased who saw assault on her husband, intervened. A1 and A4 were angered at the intervention of the deceased and assaulted her. The deceased ran towards the house of Kumar (CW 14) in escape bid. Al and A4 chased and assaulted her at the house of Kumar (CW 14). Al to A4 all of them assaulted pw2 with chopper and caused fracture of both hands. ( 3. ) THE accused persons after assaulting, left the scene saying that they have sufficiently dealt blows on the injured persons. It is stated that during the time of incident it was raining. One Kumar (CW 14), Dharma (CW 30) and Manjaiah (PW 6) lifted the deceased to the verandah of her house. The deceased died almost instantaneously. One Dharmegowda (PW 9) secured jeep and took PW2 to Crowford Hospital. The Doctor at Crowford hospital advised PW2 to be treated at the major hospital. Therefore PW2 was taken to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore. One Kumar (CW 14), Dharma (CW 30) and Manjaiah (PW 6) lifted the deceased to the verandah of her house. The deceased died almost instantaneously. One Dharmegowda (PW 9) secured jeep and took PW2 to Crowford Hospital. The Doctor at Crowford hospital advised PW2 to be treated at the major hospital. Therefore PW2 was taken to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore. PW2 was in Wenlock Hospital for about 15 days. The Wound Certificate discloses that PW2 sustained fracture injuries on both the hands. ( 4. ) PW1 lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. l before the police at 11.45 am. The police arrested Al and A2 on 15.8.2002 and arrested remaining accused on the same day. At the voluntary instance of Al to A4 the choppers used for commission of offence is recovered which are marked as M.O. 6 to M.O. 9. The Autopsy report discloses the deceased died on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries caused by sharp edged weapons. The death is homicidal death and the injuries are ante-mortem and caused within 24 hours of the incident. In trial, PW1, (daughter of the deceased), PW2 (a injured eye witness), PW3 (sister of PW2) who is also eye witness to the incident have supported the prosecution case and testify to the incident and overt acts of al to A4 of causing injuries on the deceased as well as on PW2. The blood stained weapons are sent to FSL examination. The Serologist report shows that M.O. 7 - chopper recovered from A3 contains bloodstains of 'o' group blood which tallies with the blood group of the deceased. The other choppers recovered at the instance of Al, A2 and A4 although contain bloodstains, the stains were not sufficient enough to determine the blood group. The trial Court on the basis of evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Post Mortem report convicted Al and A4 for offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Manjamma. Al to A4 are convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC for attempting to cause murder of PW2. A5 is acquitted for want of evidence. ( 5. ) A1 and A4 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1594/2005 for conviction under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. A2 and A3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1575/2005 against their conviction under Section 307 IPC. ( 6. A5 is acquitted for want of evidence. ( 5. ) A1 and A4 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1594/2005 for conviction under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. A2 and A3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1575/2005 against their conviction under Section 307 IPC. ( 6. ) SRI H. P. Leelad har, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously pointed out the following discrepant circumstances in the evidence of prosecution to assail conviction as bad in law. 1. One Kumar (CW 14) is the neighbourer. In front of his house, the incident has taken place. CW 16 is the sister-in-law of PW2 is also eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution has not examined CW14 and CW15. Non-examination of CW14 assumes more importance because she is an independent eye-witness. PW1 to PW4 who were examined are close relatives and their evidence is to be disbelieved. 2. In the FIR, it is stated that Al to A4 supports the assault pw2. At that time the deceased intervened to rescue PW2. Al and A4 wielding the choppers tried to assault the deceased. The deceased ran away to the backside of the, house of Kumar. Al and A4 chased and assaulted her with choppers. The assault on the deceased took place in the hind portion of house of CW14. Therefore PW1 to PW4 cannot be a possible eye-witness to the assault. 3. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 does not say anything about the escape bid by the deceased and Al and A4 assaulting her after some amount to chase. They say that PW2 tried to run away and fell in a drain pit. At that time it was raining. The clothing of P. W. 2 is not mud stained. The said fact belies the theory regarding incident and the place of incident. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the injured were shifted and they were made to lie in the verandah of their house. The deceased and injured both had sustained bleeding injuries and it is quite natural that floor of the verandah stained with blood. The spot mahazar prepared does not indicate blood-stains on the verandah. Therefore, the theory that the deceased and pw2 were assaulted in front of their house becomes doubtful circumstance. 5. There is delay in lodging FIR before the police. The independent and material eye-witness CW. The spot mahazar prepared does not indicate blood-stains on the verandah. Therefore, the theory that the deceased and pw2 were assaulted in front of their house becomes doubtful circumstance. 5. There is delay in lodging FIR before the police. The independent and material eye-witness CW. 14 is not examined and so also one Saraswathi-sister-in-law of pw. 2 who is an eye-witness to the incident is not examined. The wound certificate of PW. 2 marked in evidence does not disclose the names of assailants, therefore it creates serious doubt about the theory of prosecution that the accused persons are the offenders who caused death of manjamma and grievous injuries to PW. 2. The theory of motive put forth by the prosecution for committing the offence is vague and suffers from infirmities. The fact of marriage of meenakshi (daughter of PW. 2) with the son of A5 does not appear to have any bearing on the case. A5 coming along with Al to A4, enquiring with pw. 1 as to whether he saw A4 in the market place in Sakaleshpur on the day time. PW. 2 says that he noticed A4 in the market place, which is said to be provocative circumstance for offence of assault. The presence or absence of A4 at the market place is totally an irrelevant circumstance and that cannot be a provocation for Al to A4 to react so wildly so as to cause death of Mangamma and grievous injuries to PW. 2. ( 7. ) BE that as it may, the theory of motive put forth does not appear to be a very strong circumstance for the prosecution to rely upon. Nonetheless, the prosecution case is one of direct evidence of eye-witnesses who are PWs. 1 to 3. The prosecution version only discloses that CW. 14 who is a neighbour of PW. 2 and nearby his house the incident took place is not by itself the fact to suggest that CW. 14 is an eye-witness. The case of the prosecution disclose that CW. 14 after the incident assists PW. 2 and his family members and also takes PW. 2 to the hospital for treatment along with one Dharma who is also not an witness to the incident. ( 8. 14 is an eye-witness. The case of the prosecution disclose that CW. 14 after the incident assists PW. 2 and his family members and also takes PW. 2 to the hospital for treatment along with one Dharma who is also not an witness to the incident. ( 8. ) THE contention of the Counsel for the accused that the FIR disclose manjamma and chased by Al and A4 and killed her near the house of kumar - CW. 14, but the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 does not refer to the circumstance of chasing. On the other hand the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 disclose that Manjamma when she intervened to rescue PW. 2, she was assaulted by Al to A4 at the very same place where PW. 2 was being assaulted and that she was killed. These discrepancies are only venial discrepancies. The fact that the place where PW. 2 and the deceased were made to lie in Verandah on the pial of the house and the area was not shown to be bloodstained is also a trivial discrepancy, which cannot cut at the root of the case. The non-seizure of the mud-stained clothing of PW. 2 is also an unimportant lapse in the Investigation. Even if the clothes were. sized, the mud stains on the clothing would vanish and do not remain intact unlike bloodstains till the time of trial. The contention that the wound certificate of PW. 2 does not disclose the name of the assailants. Therefore, the theory that A1 to A4 participated in the incident is a doubtful circumstance is an untenable argument. PW. 13-the doctor of Venlok Hospital examined as in her evidence states that the accused persons have given the names of Al to A4 as assailants and that the same is entered in the MLC Register. The wound certificate issued is not the replica of the entries in the MLC Register but only gives cryptic details of the history of assault without disclosing the names of the assailants. ( 9. ) IN law, it is not necessary for the doctor who treat the MLC case to take down the history of the incident in detail like in FIR, it is suffice for the medical purpose to mention the history to show that it is a medico-legal case. ( 9. ) IN law, it is not necessary for the doctor who treat the MLC case to take down the history of the incident in detail like in FIR, it is suffice for the medical purpose to mention the history to show that it is a medico-legal case. If the doctor voluntarily mentions the names of assailants in the medico-legal register and if there is any discrepancy between the names recorded in the MLC Register and the FIR or the evidence, in such event, the entries in the MLC Register may become relevant for consideration. But, the non-mention of the names of the accused persons in the wound certificate by the doctor cannot be argued as a fatal lapse for the prosecution to condemn the varasity of the injured witness or the other eye-witnesses. In the instant case the situation is very similar. PW. 14- the doctor of Craford hospital has cryptically mention that the injuries are caused by the assault. The non-mention of the names of assailants by PW. 14 cannot be a basis for inference that the victim had not disclosed the details of the incident to the doctor. Even if the details are given the doctor has no duty in law to mention scrupulously all the details of the incident like the Station House officer who records the FIR. The evidence of PW. 13 shows that PW. 2 did give the names of the assailants and it is recorded in the MLC register. The names mentioned in the MLC register are in conformity with the FIR and evidence of the prosecution regarding presence and participation of al to A4 in the commission of the offence. ( 10. ) THE oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 clinchingly establishes that A1 and A4 assaulted the deceased and Al to A4 assaulted PW. 2 almost at the same time and place. The MO. 7 - chopper recovered at the voluntary instance of A. 3 show bloodstains of 'o' group blood which tallies with blood group of P. W. 2. Regarding other weapons recovered, although they have bloodstains, the stains are not sufficient enough to determine the blood group. The wound certificate of PW. 2 corroborates his evidence regarding the grievous injuries sustained by him. The P. M. Report corroborates the prosecution version that the death is homicidal. The oral evidence of PWs. Regarding other weapons recovered, although they have bloodstains, the stains are not sufficient enough to determine the blood group. The wound certificate of PW. 2 corroborates his evidence regarding the grievous injuries sustained by him. The P. M. Report corroborates the prosecution version that the death is homicidal. The oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 clinchingly establishes the incident and the participation and overt acts of Al to A4. The prosecution case discloses that A5 instigated Al to A4 to pause the assault and A5 did not actively participate in causing injuries. But however, in evidence PWs. l to 3 speak about the presence of A5. But they say that his presence was only passive and he did not abet Al to A4 to commit the offence. Therefore, the acquittal of A. 5 is sound and proper. ( 11. ) THE evidence of PWs. l to 3 discloses that when Al to A4 were assaulting, the deceased intervenes, Al and A4 alone assaulted and caused her death. The trial Court comes to the conclusion that in so far as causing death of Manjamma is concerned, A2 and A4 did not share common intention, much less common object in causing her death. Hence, Al and a4 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC. Al to A4 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC for attempting to cause the death of PW. 2. ( 12. ) THE trial Court has imposed sentence of life imprisonment against a1 and A4 for causing the death of Manjamma and imposed R. 1 for a period of 4 years against Al to A4 for attempting to cause death of PW. 2. The sentence imposed against Al to A4 under Section 307 of IPC does not appear to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. The State has not preferred any appeal against the lenient sentence imposed against Al to A4 under Section 307 of IPC. In umpteen number of cases, in respect of unjust acquittal of some of the accused or unjust conviction for a lesser offence or for soft sentence, there is a failure on the part of the State in not preferring the appeal. The official procedure requires the decision to appeal against the judgment in Sessions case is to be taken at the level of Director of Prosecution. The official procedure requires the decision to appeal against the judgment in Sessions case is to be taken at the level of Director of Prosecution. We have come across in several cases that appeals are not filed against unjust conviction for lesser offence and sentence in a very many deserving cases inadvertently and sometimes for unjustifiable reasons also. We are told that the practice and procedure permits and empower the State Public Prosecutor in his discretion to file an appeal in deserving case, later on to take Ex-post facto approval. from the Government. Therefore, we direct that the State Public Prosecutor and his team of assistants shall take note of the criminal appeals prefer appeal in the deserving case at the earliest to avoid technical problem of limitation. For the reasons and discussions made above, we find that the judgment of the trial does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to the Director of Prosecutions and Hence Department, Government of Karnataka.