JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order of the acquittal dated 24.09.2011 in S.C.No.50/2003 passed by the FTC Chikkaballapura, State has preferred this appeal. The said case-arises out of Crime No.177/2002 of Chikkaballapur Rural Police Station. The Chikkaballapur Police charge sheeted the accused in the said case for the offences punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint P.W.1 as per Ex.P1. 2. The gist of the said complaint is as follows: That there was ill will between family of himself and accused family in respect of the claim of Honge tree situated on the bund of their land. On 22.08.2002 at 12.00 noon, the accused were cutting the said tree. When himself and injured questioned that, accused forming unlawful assembly of themselves armed with chopper and club assaulted himself, his mother Rangamma, brother-in-law Ashwathappa and brother Ramesh with choppers, clubs and axe and caused grievous injuries. Accused No.4Muniyamma splashed chilly powder into the eyes and others assaulted. Accused Gangappa Balappa and Ashawathnarayan pelted stones to the complainant party. On seeing the assault Venkatesh and Ramakrishnappa rescued the injured. The accused dropped the weapons there only and sped away. The injured are shifted to the Chikkaballapur Government hospital. 3. On conducting investigation, the Chikkaballapur Police filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 7 alone and dropped other 3 accused namely, Muniyamma, Narasimha and Balappa named in FIR. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court on hearing the parties framed the charges for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w 149 of IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Therefore, the trial is conducted. 4. In support of it’s case the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and MOs.1 to 10. The trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. However they filed defence statement along with 3 documents contending that in respect of the same incident a counter case was registered against complainant party in C.C.No.496/2002 and on trial in the said case complainant party are acquitted. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. However they filed defence statement along with 3 documents contending that in respect of the same incident a counter case was registered against complainant party in C.C.No.496/2002 and on trial in the said case complainant party are acquitted. The trial court after hearing the parties by impugned Judgment acquitted accused on the following grounds: (i) The chilly powder theory stated by the prosecution is not established as the said chilly powder traces were not found at the spot and doctor does not speak about the presence of the same on the body of the injured. (ii) P.W.5 and P.W.6 are not eye witnesses to the incident and they are related to P.W.1 to P.W.3. Witnesses are unable to specify which of the assailant assaulted the victims with which of the weapons. There are material contradictions in the weapons spoken by witnesses and the one revealed before the doctor. (iii) Genesis of the offence is suppressed. The prosecution has failed to establish that victims have suffered grievous injuries. (iv) The blood stained clothes of the victims are not seized. (v) There is variation between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the doctor P.W.4 regarding the condition of the injured. (vi) The witnesses who escorted the injured to the hospital are not examined. Therefore appellants-accused are entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. Sri Vijay Kumar Majige, learned Additional S.P.P. in his arguments reiterating the grounds of the appeal seeks to assail the impugned order of acquittal on the following grounds: i. P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the injured eye witnesses and there is no reasons to disbelieve their evidence. ii. The trial court has committed error in disbelieving the evidence of the injured witnesses. iii. The trial court committed error in discarding the evidence of P.W.5 and PW.6, PW.9 only on the ground that they are the relatives. There are no reasons for P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 & P.W.6 and P.W.9 to shield true culprits. iv. The only theory set up by the defence is that the injuries are accidental one. Whereas the accused themselves state that the case on hand and C.C. No. 496/2002 are counter cases. Therefore their defence is inconsistent. 6. There are no reasons for P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 & P.W.6 and P.W.9 to shield true culprits. iv. The only theory set up by the defence is that the injuries are accidental one. Whereas the accused themselves state that the case on hand and C.C. No. 496/2002 are counter cases. Therefore their defence is inconsistent. 6. Sri M. Jaiprakash, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment on the following grounds: i. There is material contradiction with regard to the weapons imputed in complaint, in the evidence of injured and the I.O. and the medical officer; ii. There is no seizer of any chilly powder ; iii. P.Ws1 to 4, 5, 6 and 9 are related to each other. No independent witnesses are examined to support the prosecution theory; iv. As per the prosecution itself there was ill will between the accused and PWs.1 to 4. Therefore the chance of false implication is rightly accepted by the trial court. 7. Having regard to rival contentions the point that arises for consideration of this court is “whether any grounds are made out for the interference of the impugned order of acquittal? 8. It is settled law that in dealing with appeal against the order of acquittal, the court has to be slow in interference. Unless it shown that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating evidence and the relevant law there cannot be any interference with the order of acquittal. Even if there are two possible views in the matter regarding the guilt and innocence of the accused, the one which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In the light of the said settled position this court has to see whether the trial court has committed any manifest illegality in acquitting the accused. 9. As per the prosecution, due to dispute between the complainant party and accused party on 22.08.2002 at 12.00 noon in the land of the complainant party, when the accused tried to fell the Honge tree in dispute and when the complainant party questioned that, the accused assaulted the complainant party with choppers, axe, clubs and stones and caused grievous injuries. Therefore the prosecution has the duty of proving the assault in the manner and with the weapons as contended and so also nature of the injuries. 10. Therefore the prosecution has the duty of proving the assault in the manner and with the weapons as contended and so also nature of the injuries. 10. Firstly, let us consider whether the prosecution has proved that P.W.2 to P.W.4 have suffered grievous injuries as contended by the prosecution. To prove such injuries the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 Medical Officer, Chikkaballapura Government hospital, who alleged to have examined injured PWs.1 to 4, Exs.P.3 to P.6 the wound certificates. 11. Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate of P.W.1 Ravikumar in Ex.P.3 it is stated that P.W.1 has suffered fresh incised wound measuring 6 cm on left parietal eminence, contusion on lumber spine region, abrasion on right knee joint. PW.8 states that they are simple injuries. 12. The evidence of PW.8 coupled with Ex.P.4 the wound certificate of P.W.3 shows that he had suffered the following injuries: “Fresh incised wound about 11 c.m. long with outer bleeding over and joint below the lateral condyle of right femur with exposure of underlying head of the fibula and Patella, fracture of patella.” 13. Similarly with regard to P.W.3 referring to Ex.P.5, P.W.8 states that P.W.3 had suffered fresh incised wound measuring 8 cm on frontal area of scalp in coronal plane with fracture inter table of frontal bone, and the said injuries are grievous one. 14. Referring to Ex.P.6 wound certificate of P.W.4, P.W.8 states that she had suffered fresh lacerated wound over frontal areas of skull in midline and left parietal tempral contusion 1 X 0.5 cm with unilateral cerebral edema and the injuries are grievous one. According to P.W.8, P.Ws. 2 to 4 have suffered grievous injuries and he has only clinically treated them. He states later P.W.2 and P.W.3 have taken treatment at Victoria hospital Bengaluru and P.W.4 was treated at NIMHANS hospital Bengaluru and he has given opinion regarding the injuries based on discharge summary and other documents of the Victoria hospital and NIMHANS furnished to him. But the said documents are not produced in the charge sheet and the medical officer of Victoria hospital, Nimhans Hospital are not cited as charge sheet witnesses and not examined. Considering these aspects the trial court says that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries suffered by P.W.2 to P.W.4 are grievous in nature. 15. But the said documents are not produced in the charge sheet and the medical officer of Victoria hospital, Nimhans Hospital are not cited as charge sheet witnesses and not examined. Considering these aspects the trial court says that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries suffered by P.W.2 to P.W.4 are grievous in nature. 15. Unless the primary evidence, the discharge summary of P.W.2 and P.W.3 issued by Victoria Hospital and NIMHANS Hospital with regard to P.W.4 are produced only based on the oral evidence of P.W.8, it cannot be said that injures suffered by P.W.2 to P.W.6 are grievous in nature. Thus there is no manifest illegality or error in findings of the trial court that prosecution has failed to prove that PWs.2 to 4 have suffered grievous injuries. 16. It is to be noted that in the complaint P.W.1 stated that Muniyamma (accused No.4 in the complaint) splashed chilly powder into the eyes of all the four victims and other accused assaulted them with chopper and hurled stones towards them. The injured witnesses have stated in the incident that their clothes and weapons were stained with blood. Ex.P.2 is spot mahazar. When in the complaint there is reference to the clubs, Ex.P.2 shows that from the spot 1axe, 3-choppers, 2-clubs, 3-stones were recovered Ex.P.2 itself states that none of the weapons where stained with blood. Ex.P.2 and the evidence of I.O. shows that there was no traces of the chilly powder at the scene of occurrence. P.W.8 doctor says that he examined the victims on the same day commencing from 1.30 p.m. till 2.00 p.m. P.W.2 says that victims were escorted by one Narasimhaiah to the hospital and history of injuries were given by victims. If that is to be believed as per the injured have not whispered anything before him about the clubs, stones and chilly powder and choppers. According to him the victims revealed to him that they are assaulted by sickle and pickaxe. Even on collecting the wound certificate I.O has not made any efforts to record the further statement of the injured to clarify whether the said weapons were sickle and pickaxe. 17. According to him the victims revealed to him that they are assaulted by sickle and pickaxe. Even on collecting the wound certificate I.O has not made any efforts to record the further statement of the injured to clarify whether the said weapons were sickle and pickaxe. 17. P.W1 to P.W.4 state that there clothes were stained with blood P.W.10 says on the same day on receiving the memo from the hospital he visited the hospital at 4.05 p.m. and recorded the statement of P.W.1 as per ExP.1 he has not collected alleged blood stained clothes of P.W.1 nor P.W.11 the I.O. collects the same. P.W10 says immediately after recording the statement he returned to the police station and registered FIR and sent that to the court and handed over to investigation to PW11. 18. Therefore at earliest point of time, P.W.10 and P.W.11 are aware of weapons and clothes being stained with blood. Non-seizer of the alleged blood stained clothes and not seeking clarification regarding inconsistency with regard to weapons of offence, is fatal to the prosecution’s case. The I.O. has not even collected MLC register extract to find out what is the history recorded and regarding the nature of the injuries as well. 19. It is true that unless it shown that the injured witnesses are interested or they have falsely implicated the accused in the case their evidence shall be given due credence. In this case admittedly arising out of the same incident, two cases were registered one against present accused party and other against present complainant party. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 as well as P.W.1 themselves goes to show that there was ill will between the complainant party and accused party. Having regard to that evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 has to be evaluated cautiously. 20. In the complaint weapons of offence were mentioned is chopper, axes, clubs and stones and chilly powder. Before the doctor weapons of offence were named as sickle and pickaxe. Initially in the complaint in all 10 persons were arrayed as accused. Out of them, I.O. himself gives up 3 persons while filing the charge sheet stating that no case was made out against them. That goes to show that there is an attempt of exaggeration on the part of the complainant party. Initially in the complaint in all 10 persons were arrayed as accused. Out of them, I.O. himself gives up 3 persons while filing the charge sheet stating that no case was made out against them. That goes to show that there is an attempt of exaggeration on the part of the complainant party. Without making any attempt to produce their blood stained clothes or said blood stained axe, sickle, before the I.O. 21. It is to be noted that initially once the trial court acquitted the accused by its order dated 19.11.2005, the complainant party challenged the said matter before this Court in Crl.R.P.2097/2005. Similarly even the prosecution challenged that order before this court in Crl.A.No.569/2006. The said appeal was allowed by the judgment dated 03.06.2011 on the ground that the accused are not properly examined as per 313 Cr.P.C and the matter was remanded. Crl.R.P.No.2097/2005 filed by the complainant party came to be dismissed by this court on 27.06.2012. 22. The impugned order of acquittal is passed on 24.09.2011 that goes to show that the complainant party were interested to see that the accused are convicted in the matter. On acquittal for the second time, the present appeal is filed only by the State. 23. It is to be noted that in Crl.R.P.2097/2005 the accused challenged earlier order of acquittal on the ground that, case should have been investigated by the same I.O. and tried by the same court. In Crl.R.P.2097/2005 this court held that lapse in trying two cases by one court has not caused any prejudice to the accused. Therefore it does not vitiate the whole trial. 24. The full bench of this court in State Government Karnataka by Circle Inspector of Police vs. Hosakeri Ningappa and Another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509 on reference on the issue of case and counter case has held as follows: “18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the points referred to us as under: (a) If the case and counter case are not tried simultaneously as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P.(Supra) and in the case of Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P (Supra) the proceedings ipso facto do not get vitiated. But, where the irregular procedure adopted by the Trial Court has caused prejudice to the accused and has occasioned failure of justice, the proceeding and the trial vitiates. Otherwise, the proceedings are protected under Section 465 of the Code. (b) The evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. The Trial Judge can only rely upon the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in accordance with procedure known to law in the other case, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Otherwise, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. (c) If the Trial Court disposes of the case and counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and the appeal is preferred in the case decided later, the proceedings in the later case do not automatically get vitiated. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. The accused have not showed any prejudice caused to them and issue is already concluded by this court in Crl.R.P.No.2097/2005 between the same parties. Though the trial court while discussing on that issue did not record any ultimate findings, but has concluded saying that the trial is not vitiated. 26. Coming back to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 as already pointed out there are material contradiction in their statement before the doctor and the I.O. with regard to the weapons used for commission of offence. Having regard to that, the trial Court sought corroboration for the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 by evidence of other witnesses P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9 who have admitted that they are the close relatives of P.W.1 to P.W.4. Out of them P.W.5 says that he has not given any statement before the Police. 27. Having regard to that, the trial Court sought corroboration for the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 by evidence of other witnesses P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9 who have admitted that they are the close relatives of P.W.1 to P.W.4. Out of them P.W.5 says that he has not given any statement before the Police. 27. P.W.5 says they were grazing the cattle at a distance of 200 ft and P.W.6 says that they were grazing cattle at a distance of 100 ft. P.Ws.1 to 6 all state that Muniyamma splashed chilly powder on the eyes of P.Ws.1 to 4, but that history is conspicuously absent before the Doctor. No traces of chilly powder are found either at the scene of occurrence or on the person of P.Ws.1 to 4. 28. Though P.Ws.5 and 6 claim that they are the eyewitnesses, they have not escorted the injured to the hospital. In the natural course, they being the relatives could have escorted the injured to the hospital. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.8 coupled with Exs.P3 to 6 shows that one Nagarathna and Narasimhaiah escorted the injured to the hospital. Even the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is not consistent with the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 at the time of the incident or they being the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 say that by the time P.Ws.5 and 6 came to the scene of occurrence they had already suffered injuries in the hands of the accused. 29. Even the evidence of the injured with regard to the assailants and the weapons wielded by them and the injuries suffered is not cogent and consistent. As rightly noted by the trial Court, they vary from each other in those aspects. P.Ws.5 and 6 say that P.W.4 Rangamma was unconscious when she was shifted to the hospital. As already pointed, if she was so seriously injured, P.Ws.5 and 6 being the close relatives, in the ordinary course, any prudent person would have assisted her and taken her to the hospital. P.W.8, the Doctor does not state that she was in a unconscious state. Having regard to all these material inconsistencies and contradictions, the trial Court states that P.Ws.5 and 6 being the eyewitnesses is doubtful and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is also not reliable to place the conviction. 30. P.W.8, the Doctor does not state that she was in a unconscious state. Having regard to all these material inconsistencies and contradictions, the trial Court states that P.Ws.5 and 6 being the eyewitnesses is doubtful and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is also not reliable to place the conviction. 30. In view of the discussions made above, it is clear that though there was a scuttle between complainant party and accused party, but the case that the accused assaulted P.Ws.1 to 4 with choppers, axes, clubs and swords is inconsistent with the case set up by the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court has accepted the theory, which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, on appreciating all oral and documentary evidence. No manifest illegality is found in the acquittal recorded by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court in this appeal. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.