JUDGMENT : This is the appeal preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XVI, Bengaluru City dated 16.06.2012 in S.C. No.1190/2011, wherein the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The Inspector of Police, D.J. Halli Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused persons, alleging that on 03.04.2011 at 12.00 ‘O’clock midnight, while they were making ‘galata’ in front of the house of C.W.1Pervez Ahmed, situated in No.40, 4th cross, Modi Road, Pyarejan Street, Bengaluru, C.W.1 enquired both the accused as to why they are making ‘galata’, both of them having common intention to commit the murder of C.W.1, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted C.W.1 with a chopper on his right elbow and both knees and caused grievous injuries. Hence, the complainant injured lodged a complaint against the respondents/accused. On that basis, case came to be registered in Crime No.105/2011 for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and the Enquiry Officer took up investigation. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the respondents/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and the charge was read over and explained to the accused persons. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses and produced 7 documents with submarks and got one material object marked. Thereafter, the respondents/accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and their statements came to be recorded. On the side of the defence, no witnesses are examined nor any document/s are produced. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and also after considering the materials placed before it both oral and documentary, ultimately, the learned Fast Track Judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused from the said charges. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and also after considering the materials placed before it both oral and documentary, ultimately, the learned Fast Track Judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused from the said charges. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Court below and also challenging its legality and correctness, the appellant/State is before this Court and they have challenged the Judgment and Order of acquittal on the grounds mentioned at para Nos.1 to 6 of the appeal memorandum. 3. We have heard the arguments of learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. 4. Learned Addl. S.P.P. made the submission that there is a material placed by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.1, who is injured. P.Ws.2 and 8 are the eyewitnesses to the said incident. He submits that there is consistency in the evidence of P.W.1injured and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8 eyewitnesses. He made further submission that doctorP.W.5, who examined and treated injuredP.W.1 has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P4, wherein the injuries sustained are noted. The doctor in his evidence also deposed about the injury sustained by P.W.1. He made further submission that so far as recoveries are concerned, evidence of the Investigating OfficerP.W.10 goes to show that during investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted the spotmahazar proceedings. Looking to the entire materials placed by the prosecution, the material is worth believable, cogent and consistent. In spite of that, the learned Fast Track Judge wrongly held that the prosecution fails to make out the case and wrongly acquitted both the accused persons. Hence, he submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal is illegal, it is not sustainable in law and it is also not in accordance with the material placed in the said case. Hence, he submitted to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court and to convict both the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC and to impose the sentence against them. 5. Hence, he submitted to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court and to convict both the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC and to impose the sentence against them. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused made the submission that it is the contention of P.W.1complainant that as both of his hands were injured and he was unable to put his signature or thumb mark, he put his leg mark on the complaint. In this connection, learned counsel drew our attention to the evidence of doctorP.W.5 and made the submission that the doctor has clearly stated that he has obtained the thumb impression of the injured on the complaint. On the basis of this, F.I.R. came to be registered. He also made the submission that in such type of incidents i.e., offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., when the person sustained injuries and if his evidence is worth believable, it could be sufficient to base the conviction as against the accused. But, he made the submission that in this case, though it is deposed by P.W.1 that his clothes were blood stained and even M.O.1 having blood stains, the clothes were not at all seized by the Police nor they were produced by P.W.1injured himself. It is also his contention that there were no blood stains on M.O.1 and to ascertain that whether the blood stains were there or not, the weapon was not referred to the F.S.L. for examination by the experts. Learned counsel further made the submission that though it is the prosecution case that the mother accompanied the injured to the hospital, though she has been important and material witness, she has not been examined by the prosecution. It is the further submission that no independent witnesses were examined in the case. P.Ws.2 and 8 are the friends/relatives of P.W.1. It is also his submission that learned Fast Track Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration both oral and documentary evidence and rightly came to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to make out the case as against the respondents/accused. P.Ws.2 and 8 are the friends/relatives of P.W.1. It is also his submission that learned Fast Track Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration both oral and documentary evidence and rightly came to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to make out the case as against the respondents/accused. Learned counsel further submitted that as it is the Judgment and Order of acquittal, on the factual story, even if another view may be possible, but, on that basis alone this Court cannot interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal unless it is shown by the prosecution that there is blatant illegality committed by the learned Fast Track Judge in coming to such conclusion. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused made the submission that no illegality has been committed by the learned Fast Track Judge nor there is any perverse or capricious approach taken by the learned Fast Track Court in coming to such conclusion. Hence, he submitted that as there is no merit, the appeal be dismissed by confirming the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal. 6. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 and the documents produced by the prosecution. We have also considered the oral submissions made by learned counsel on both the side at the Bar. 7. Let us examine the material placed on record. C.W.1, the injured who is examined as P.W.1 regarding the contents of the complaintEx.P1. We have already made our reference in detail. If the allegations made in the complaintEx.P1 are verified and compared with the oral evidence of P.W.1, in the complaint, it is mentioned that on 03.04.2011, in the midnight at 12 ‘O’clock, some persons were standing in front of his house and they were talking using vulgar words and they were shouting. P.W.1 came and asked them as to why they are shouting like that in front of his house and as there are women and children in their house, it will be obstacle and asked them to go out from the said place. Even after that also, P.W.1 was standing in front of the house. P.W.1 came and asked them as to why they are shouting like that in front of his house and as there are women and children in their house, it will be obstacle and asked them to go out from the said place. Even after that also, P.W.1 was standing in front of the house. Immediately, accused No.1 Asmathkhan and accused No.2Mohammed Gouse holding ‘machhu’ in their hand to be used for cutting tender coconut, all of a sudden, using abusive words told P.W.1 that they are going to commit his murder. Stating so, accused No.1 assaulted P.W.1 on his right elbow portion forcibly. He screamed. Then accused No.2 also assaulted P.W.1 on his right and left knee portions with ‘machhu’. Hence, he has sustained bleeding injuries. He requested to take action against those persons, whereas in the oral evidence, he has stated that these two accused persons were in front of his house, which is against what he has stated in the complaint Ex.P1 and it was asked during the course of cross-examination about what he has stated in the complaint and it was also suggested that he has not stated in the complaint what he has deposed before the Court. However, P.W.1 denied the said suggestion. But, the fact remains that in the complaint he has not mentioned that it is only accused Nos.1 and 2, who were standing and making ‘galata’ by using vulgar words. What he has mentioned in the complaint is some persons were standing in front of his house. 8. So far as the complaint–Ex.P1 is concerned, it is mentioned in the last line of the said complaint as he sustained severe injury to his right hand, it was not possible for him to put his signature, therefore, his right leg toe impression was made on the complaint. In this connection and as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/accused, we perused the oral evidence of the doctor, who examined this P.W.1, wherein the doctor stated in his evidence on page No.2 of the deposition at para No.3 that the patient was conscious when he came to their hospital. He has taken L.T.M. of the injured. Therefore, this itself clearly goes to show that P.W.1 mentioned false things in his evidence that as he was not able to put his L.T.M., his right leg toe impression was taken on the complaint. He has taken L.T.M. of the injured. Therefore, this itself clearly goes to show that P.W.1 mentioned false things in his evidence that as he was not able to put his L.T.M., his right leg toe impression was taken on the complaint. Apart from that, in the evidence of P.W.1 it is referred that after the incident, for a period of 3 days he was unconscious. If that is so, the complaint ought to be on the 4th day or else, the complaint be from either his mother or any other relatives. But, it is not so in this case. At one breath, he deposed before the Court that though he was unconscious for a period of 3 days after the incident, when he was taken to the hospital, before going to the hospital he went to the police station, lodged the complaint, then he was taken to the hospital. But, the material goes to show that the police went to the hospital and in the hospital they have recorded the statement of this P.W.1. Apart from that, the evidence of the doctor P.W.5 also goes to show that P.W.1 was conscious. Therefore, the material placed on record goes to show that he was in conscious state, even then, P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that for a period of 3 days he was unconscious. 9. So far as the place of the incident is concerned, it is the case of P.W.1complainant that the incident took place exactly in front of his house. But, looking to the oral evidence of P.W.5doctor, wherein the doctor deposed that on 04.04.2011 at 1.00 a.m., Pervez Ahmed was brought to the hospital with the history of assault at 12.30 a.m. on 04.04.2011. On examination, he found four injuries, which are mentioned at Sl. Nos.1 to 4 in his deposition. He has given treatment to the said injuries. Dr.Prakash, Casualty Medical Officer has issued the wound certificate. The wound certificate is at Ex.P4. The signature of Dr. Prakash is at Ex.P4(a). He has opined that injury Nos.1 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury Nos.2 and 4 are simple in nature. The said injuries are caused by assault with a sharp weapon. Dr.Prakash, Casualty Medical Officer has issued the wound certificate. The wound certificate is at Ex.P4. The signature of Dr. Prakash is at Ex.P4(a). He has opined that injury Nos.1 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury Nos.2 and 4 are simple in nature. The said injuries are caused by assault with a sharp weapon. In the cross-examination of this P.W.5, he deposed that the document showed to him is the police intimation form issued by their hospital to the D.J. Halli Police Station, which was marked as per Ex.P5. The witness further deposed and admitted the suggestion as true that according to Ex.P5, the patient informed him that he was assaulted in Anand Theatre, Tannery Road, Bengaluru. So, according to the evidence of P.W.5doctor, the place of offence is not in front of the house of the complainantP.W.1, but, it was as informed by the complainant himself while treating him with the history of assault he himself gave as in Anand Theatre. We have also perused the oral evidence of two witnesses of whom the prosecution claims that they are eyewitnesses to the incident. 10. P.W.2 one Syed Shavez deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m., he went to hotel, had meals and was returning back, when he saw accused No.1, who was holding one ‘machhu’ in his hand and accused No.2 was also present. Both were running towards the shop of C.W.1. He also came from the said road and saw there was ‘galata’ going on between the accused and C.W.1. In the said galata, accused No.1 assaulted C.W.1 with ‘machhu’ on the right hand and also on the left hand. With the same ‘machhu’, accused No.2 assaulted C.W.1 on his left leg. When he shouted, nobody came to the said place immediately, but, police came to the said place. Himself and police shifted the injured to the Jain Hospital. He does not know for what reason the quarrel was going on. The accused threw the ‘machhu’ at the said place and ran away. He has given the statement before the police and identified the ‘machhu’ [chopper] as M.O.1. In the cross-examination, he too deposed that C.W.1 was conscious and when he was in the hospital upto 4.30 a.m., no police came to the hospital nor recorded his statement. The accused threw the ‘machhu’ at the said place and ran away. He has given the statement before the police and identified the ‘machhu’ [chopper] as M.O.1. In the cross-examination, he too deposed that C.W.1 was conscious and when he was in the hospital upto 4.30 a.m., no police came to the hospital nor recorded his statement. During the night of the incident from 6.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., he was working in the shop of C.W.1. Himself and C.W.1 are the relatives. He denied the suggestion that in his statement he has not stated about the facts “on 03.04.2011, at 11.30 p.m., he was coming back after having meals in hotel”. He denied the further suggestion that in his statement he has not stated that he was also coming through the said route and when he saw the ‘galata’ was going on between the accused persons and C.W.1. He denied the further suggestion that he has not stated in his statement that accused No.1 assaulted C.W.1 on the right and left hands. Thereafter, with the same ‘machhu’ accused No.2Mohammed Gouse assaulted on the left leg of C.W.1. He shouted for the help, but, immediately, nobody came to the said place, but, police came there. Then, himself and the police have shifted the injured to the Jain Hospital. He denied the suggestion that no incident took place at the place that he has deposed and C.W.1 was assaulted at Anand Theatre in the ‘galata’ and as he is relative of C.W.1 and in order to help C.W.1, he is giving false evidence. 11. Coming to the evidence of another eyewitness, P.W.8, who deposed in his examination-in chief, on 03.04.2011 at 12 ‘O’Clock midnight, nearby M.A. Timbers, talks were going on with the accused and C.W.1. At that time, accused No.1 assaulted C.W.1 on his right hand. C.W.1 fell down. At that time, accused No.2 with the same ‘machhu’ assaulted on the left leg of C.W.1. After seeing the people gathering, the accused persons threw the ‘machhu’ there itself, ran away from the said place. Thereafter, police came to the said place in Cheeta vehicle and C.W.1 was shifted to Mahaveer Jain Hospital. The witness identified both the accused persons, who were present before the Court. He also identified the ‘machhu’ M.O.1. In the cross-examination, he deposed that C.W.1 is his relative. Thereafter, police came to the said place in Cheeta vehicle and C.W.1 was shifted to Mahaveer Jain Hospital. The witness identified both the accused persons, who were present before the Court. He also identified the ‘machhu’ M.O.1. In the cross-examination, he deposed that C.W.1 is his relative. On the date of the incident, at 12 O’clock, when he was coming after finishing work in hotel, talks were going on between the accused and C.W.1. The incident took place at 4th cross. Police came stating that the incident took place near Anand Theatre and they took his name, address, but, he has not given statement before the police. On 10.02.2012 and 29.03.2012 he has not given evidence by coming to the Court. First time, he has come before the Court to give his evidence. He does not know, who is the person, who gave the evidence on the said two days. 12. Looking to the oral evidence of these P.Ws.2 and 8 and as it is rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondents/accused, both have admitted that they are relatives of P.W.1injured. Though it is the prosecution case that number of persons gathered at the spot, they were not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.8 also goes to show that another person came before the Court on 10.02.2012 and 29.03.2012. So far as the evidence given on two earlier dates is not P.W.8 as it is deposed by P.W.8 himself, he clearly stated that on those two days, he has not come to the court to give evidence and it is only for the first time, he came before the Court on 26.05.2012. His evidence clearly goes to show that a person, who has been examined on earlier two days i.e., 10.02.2012 and 29.03.2012 is altogether different from the person, who has been examined on 26.05.2012. This goes to show that even there is impersonation before the Court, however the details are not forthcoming as to who are the persons who came before the Court on two other dates to give evidence as if he is the same person who came before the Court for the purpose of further cross-examination on 26.05.2012. This goes to show that even there is impersonation before the Court, however the details are not forthcoming as to who are the persons who came before the Court on two other dates to give evidence as if he is the same person who came before the Court for the purpose of further cross-examination on 26.05.2012. When the place of the incident itself is different as deposed by the prosecution witnesses that it is nearby Anand Theatre and not in front of the house of P.W.1, it is difficult for this Court to accept the case of the prosecution. Looking to the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5doctor, P.W.8another alleged eyewitness and the Investigating Officer, the prosecution material is not consistent with each other. It is also not worth believable. The Police Officer, who recorded the statement of witnesses also not been examined before the Court. Therefore, considering the material, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness is also not worth believable though there is an evidence stated to be of injuredP.W.1. These aspects were rightly considered by the learned Fast Track Judge in the impugned Judgment and Order, discussed at length about both oral as well as material placed by the prosecution. Making appreciation about these materials, the learned Fast Track Judge ultimately, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Even after reappreciation of the entire materials in this appeal, we do not find any illegality committed by the learned Fast Track Judge in coming to such a conclusion. There are no justifiable and valid grounds for this Court to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal. No merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.