Judgment : The State has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 7-2-2002 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C.No.305 of 1999, wherein the respondent herein has been acquitted for the offences leveled against him and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder. Charge-sheet was filed by Kodihalli Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the respondent and also one Shivanna, who was arrayed s A1, alleging that on 21-8-1998 at about 11.00 a.m. the accused, with an intention to murder one Karigowda with two choppers held by each of them, went near Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Kadashivanahalli. When Karigowda was teathering his bullocks, A1-Shivanna assaulted on the back of deceased Karigowda with a chopper and later on the respondent-Ulle, shouting that he has not died, assaulted 3 or 4 times with his chopper, as a result of which karigowda died on the spot. The wife of the deceased lodged complaint before Kodihalli Police on the same day evening. Later on, the matter was investigated by Kodihalli Police and it was committed by Judicial Magistrate First Class to the Court of Sessions. The respondent-accused did not plead guilty. The case was tried against the respondent alone since A1 was absconding. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined in all 19 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 19 and relied upon Exs. P.1 to P.14 and material objects marked as M.O.Nos.1 to 7. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, formulated the following point for its consideration: “Whether the prosecution proves that on 21-8-1998 at 11 a.m., under a tamarind tree near Anjaneyaswamy temple at Kadashivanahalli, the accused along with accused 1Shivanna had committed murder of one Karigowda by assaulting him by means of chopper and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?” Upon appreciation of the point which arise for its consideration, the Trial Court held the same in the negative. Consequently, A2 respondent was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and directed the police to file a separate charge-sheet against absconding A1Shivanna by its judgment dated 7-2-2002. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Though several grounds are urged by the prosecution in the appeal memo, at the time of arguments the learned Prosecutor has urged the following points before us: According to the prosecution, the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 and also the medical evidence let in by the prosecution to prove that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him, by the use of chopper-M.O.1 by the respondent and also other injuries on account of the assault made by the absconding accused Shivanna by using another chopper. Therefore, it is contended that on account of wrong appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. In the circumstances, he requested the Court to re-appreciate the evidence lead in by the prosecution and reverse the findings of the Trial court hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and punish the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondent. According to her, no error is committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence of P.W.4-Shivane Gowda and that subsequent to the judgment of the Sessions Court, a separate case was registered against A1-Shivanna and he has been acquitted by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.50 of 2005 on 15-7-2008. She further states that against the order of acquittal passed against A1, the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal and that the order of acquittal passed against A1 has become final. Therefore, she says that the present appeal has to be dismissed solely on this ground. She further says there is no corroboration in the evidence let in by the prosecution. 6. Therefore, she says that the present appeal has to be dismissed solely on this ground. She further says there is no corroboration in the evidence let in by the prosecution. 6. As per the charge-sheet, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, lodged complaint before the police stating that A1 and A2 have committed murder of her husband Karigowda on account of illicit relationship he had with the wife of present respondent and that a panchayat was convened prior to the incident and the panchas directed karigowda to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation to the respondent, as a result of which the respondent had grudge on Karigowda as he was not willing to live with his wife yashoda on account of illicit relationship between Yashoda and Karigowda. 7. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the complainant, who has been examined as P.W.1, by giving a go-bye to her case as per the complaint, has set up a separate theory and therefore the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the evidence of P.W.1 and so also the evidence of P.W.4 the alleged eye-witness. According to the complainant-P.W.1, she had not gone to the Police Station to lodge complaint and that the complaint was actually lodged by P.W.4-Shivane Gowda and her signature was obtained in the village. As she is an illiterate she was not aware of the contents of the complaint-Ex.P.1. According to her, her brother Shivane Gowda, who has been examined as P.W.4, had been to police station and that he got registered the case against the accused persons. P.W.4 had been to police station and that he got registered the case against the accused persons. P.W.4-Shivane Gowda, who is said to be the brother-in-law of the deceased and brother of P.W.1, has stated that he had not been to police station to lodge the complaint and that his statement has been recorded by the police at the time of inquest. He also denied the alleged relationship between deceased Karigowda and yashoda, wife of the respondent. Therefore, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that since the prosecution case has been completely deviated by P.Ws.1 and 4, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused by giving the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that since the prosecution case has been completely deviated by P.Ws.1 and 4, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused by giving the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. She further contends that in view of the autopsy and evidence of the doctor, it is clear that on the body of the deceased there were more than 7 injuries but as per the evidence of P.W.1, the absconded accused Shivanna hit the deceased with the chopper once and thereafter on 3 or 4 occasions by the present accused. Therefore, she contends that in view of the evidence of P.W.4, there could not be 7 deep cut injuries and other abrasions on the body of the deceased. She further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 is unnatural and cannot be believed. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent. Lastly, she contends that since the appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal, this Hon’ble Court should be very slow in interfering with the judgment of the Trial Court and therefore there is no necessity for this Court to reverse the findings of the Trial Court. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is, whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused? 9. It is not in dispute that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.W.4 as he is the only eye-witness according to the prosecution. The complaint is lodged by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. According to her, the incident has taken place at 11.00 am on 21-8-1998 and she has lodged complaint before the police. Her statement was recorded in the police station and she has signed the complaint-Ex.P.1. When she was in the witness-box, she has given a go-bye to the case of the prosecution. According to her, she had not been to police station to lodge live complaint as per Ex.P.1. It is her case that the complaint has been lodged by her brother-P.W.4. 10. When she was in the witness-box, she has given a go-bye to the case of the prosecution. According to her, she had not been to police station to lodge live complaint as per Ex.P.1. It is her case that the complaint has been lodged by her brother-P.W.4. 10. On a perusal of the complaint-Ex.P.1 it is clear that P.W.1 has stated that there was an illicit relationship between yashoda the wife of the accused and karigowda and that a panchayat had also been convened by the villagers on the complaint of the accused and that the panchas decided to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- to the accused by deceased Karigowda even though accused was not willing to love with his wife yashoda. P.W.1 in her evidence has denied these allegations. According to her, she has not lodged the complaint and she only stated regarding the illicit relationship of her husband with the wife of respondent-Ulle. In the cross-examination she has admitted that there were complaints against her husband that he had illicit relationship with may woman in the village and there were many enemies to him on account of his illicit relationship with married women. 11. P.W.4-Shivanegowda has stated that he had not lodged the complaint before the Police but P.W.1 has lodged the same. He has stated that at the first instance A1Shivanna hit the deceased with a chopper and thereafter on 3 occasions A2 hit the deceased with his chopper, as a result of which Karigowda died on the spot. If we read the autopsy marked as Ex.P.6 and the evidence of P.W.16-Dr. Satish, several injuries were found on the body of deceased Karigowda. If the evidence of P.W.4 is accepted, there could not be so many injuries as per Ex.P.6 and as per the evidence of P.W.16. There is no explanation by the prosecution in regard to the discrepancy. Therefore, the Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P.1 and evidence of P.W.4, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In addition to the above, it is not in dispute that the Trial Court has also acquitted A1 in S.C.No.50 of 2005 and that the State has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal. 12. In addition to the above, it is not in dispute that the Trial Court has also acquitted A1 in S.C.No.50 of 2005 and that the State has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal. When the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of A1 and in view of the finding of the Trial Court in the present case, as appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court in respect of P.Ws.1 and 4 is proper, we are not in a position to take a different view than the one taken by the Trial Court. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to reverse the findings of the Trial Court. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 7-2-2002 passed by the II Additional and District Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby confirmed.