Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2088 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

2020-10-21

B.VEERAPPA, K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT B.Veerappa, J. - The State has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 27th October, 2014 made in S.C.No.18/2012 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara acquitting all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that about fourteen years back, P.W.5 Shailaja, wife of accused No.1 and cousin of the complainant -P.W.1 was married to the accused and out of their marriage two children were born. As the accused was addicted to gambling and drinking, he used to quarrel with his wife - Shailaja asked her to get the property of her father viz., from her parental home. About fifteen days prior to the incident, Shailaja had called the complainant and told him to take her to his home as she was unable to withstand the physical and mental torture given by her husband accused/respondent, who was threatening her with life, if she did not get property from her parental home and therefore, P.W.1 the complainant brought her back to his home. On 10.3.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. when the accused had come to the house of the complainant, he had quarreled with his wife for which complainant's son -P.W.2 - Nandeesha had taken exception and threatened him that if he continues with the said behaviour, he would throw him away from the house. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 13.3.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. when P.W.1 - complainant and P.W.2 - Nandeesha were asleep, P.W.1 - complainant woke up on hearing barking sound of the dogs and saw the accused holding a size stone and was about to throw the same over the head of P.W.2. Therefore, the complainant screamed and raised hue and cry due to which P.W.2 woke up and turned his head towards right side. As such the size stone fell on the left side causing injuries to his left head and he was also stabbed on his left shoulder with the knife by the accused. On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1-complainant, other witnesses gathered there and caught hold of the accused, who also had some abrasions as he had fallen down while fleeing from the spot. On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1-complainant, other witnesses gathered there and caught hold of the accused, who also had some abrasions as he had fallen down while fleeing from the spot. Immediately, P.W.2 - Nandeesha and accused were put in the car and P.W.2 Nandeesha was admitted to the hospital and accused was handed over to the police station and a complaint was lodged against him. It was further alleged that the accused again had threatened the complainant P.W.1 that, if they did not give share in the property, they will not survive and he would kill them. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1, the jurisdictional police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.94/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC and on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance of the offences, committed the case to the Sessions Court. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused on 23rd April, 2012, read over and explained the same to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 12 witnesses - P.Ws.1 to 12, got marked the documents - Exs.P.1 to P.10 and produced material objects - M.Os.1 to 5. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Though the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him did not lead any evidence. 5. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Though the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him did not lead any evidence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after framing two points and consideration of both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13.3.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. in front of the residential house of P.W.1 - Rajappa at Kebbepura village in Gundlupet Taluk, when P.W.2 Nandeesha was sleeping on a cot in the drawing room of the said house, the accused with the intention of killing the said Nandeesha, attempted to drop a stone slab on his head and when he woke up on the cries of P.W.1 Rajappa, P.W.2 - Nandeesha pushed himself towards the right side and the said stone slab fell on the left side of his head and left shoulder and acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him holding that as the accused had not attempted to murder P.W.2 - Nandeesha and hence, has not committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 6. The learned Sessions Judge further has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had criminally intimidated P.W.5 - Shailaja - his wife by giving life threats to her and her family members asking them to get the property transferred to her name from her father P.W.1 Rajappa and thereby has not committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 27th October, 2014 acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the State. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Sri S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 8. Sri S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and hence, it is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the evidence of P.W.1- the complainant and also P.W.2 -the injured witness, P.Ws.3, 4, 8 to 10 - the eye witnesses, P.W.5 the circumstantial witness, P.Ws.7, 3 and 1 the panch witness to the spot mahazar and seizure of material objects, P.W.6 the doctor and P.Ws.11 and 12 the investigating officers clearly goes to show that the accused has committed the aforesaid offences, but the said aspect has not at been considered by the learned Sessions. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal cannot be sustained. 9. The learned HCGP further contended that P.W.5, who is none other than the wife of accused, has turned hostile with regard to motive, but has admitted the presence of accused at the time of incident. Though she has different story about the manner of incident, her testimony about presence of accused at the spot clearly establishes the participation of accused in the crime alleged against him, which has been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge. He would further contend that P.W.6 the doctor, who has examined P.W.2, has spoken about the injuries found on the victim and has opined that they might be due to the assault with a size stone and by the attack of knife which is corroborated by the history given Ex.P.4 i.e., the wound certificate. 10. The learned HCGP further contended that the spot panchanama - Ex.P.2, wound certificate - Ex.P.9, complaint - Ex.P.1, FIR Ex.P.5, FSL report Ex.P.10 apart from other exhibits, go to show the sequence of events as also motive beyond the accused assaulting P.W.2. Even the mahazar witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, but the same has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses mainly on the basis of minor contradictions which are of no value to acquit the accused. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 11. He further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses mainly on the basis of minor contradictions which are of no value to acquit the accused. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, Sri Y.S. Shiva Prasad, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and contended that P.W.5 - Shailaja, the wife of the accused though has not supported the prosecution case has deposed that P.Ws.1 and 2 were compelling the accused to give divorce to P.W.5 - Shailaja with regard to demand of share of the property. He further contended that the mother of P.W.5 has not been examined and no suit is filed either by P.W.5 or her mother. He further contended that the alleged knife or chopper used by the accused to attack P.W.2 as alleged in the complaint has not been seized and therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge considering the entire material on record in proper perspective has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment acquitting the accused and the same is in accordance with law and this Court cannot interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, as the scope of appeal is very limited under Section 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the State. 12. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC., is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material, including the original records carefully. 14. In order to re-appreciate the entire material on record, it is relevant to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material, including the original records carefully. 14. In order to re-appreciate the entire material on record, it is relevant to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 15. P.W.1 - Rajappa, who is the complainant and father of the injured Nandeesha - P.W.2 has deposed that accused - the husband of P.W.5 - Shailaja, who is the daughter of his junior paternal uncle used to smoke, gamble and consume liquor and was demanding Shailaja to go to her parental house and ask for the property by tutoring her. He was also beating her. He has further deposed that as the accused was quarreling with Shailaja, he had brought her to his house about 20 days earlier to the incident. It is his further evidence that the accused had threatened him, Nandeesha - P.W. 2 and Shailaja to give the share in the property otherwise he would chop off Nandeesha and all her family members. In turn, Nandeesha P.W.2 had told the accused not to make galata after consuming liquor and if does so, he would drive the accused out of the house. On the date of the incident, about one year 2 months back, at 10.00 p.m. when P.W.2 - Nandeesh was sleeping on a cot outside the house, a dog started barking and when he switched on the light and saw outside, he saw the accused was about to drop a size stone on the head of P.W.2 Nandeesha. At that time, as he called the name of Nandeesha, Nandeesha turned himself aside and he sustained injuries on the left side of his head and shoulder. In the meanwhile when the neighbours came to the spot and were catching hold of the accused, he tried to escape and fell down. The accused sustained injuries on his lips and other places. Thereafter, they took Nandeesha to the hospital at Gundlupet and accused to the police station and handed over him to the police. He also lodged a written complaint as per Ex.P.1. He has identified Ex.P.2 as the spot mahazar, his signature as Ex.P.2(a), M.O.1 - size stone, M.O.2 - Lungi, M.O.3 blood stained shirt of his son and M.O.4 - shirt of the accused. He also lodged a written complaint as per Ex.P.1. He has identified Ex.P.2 as the spot mahazar, his signature as Ex.P.2(a), M.O.1 - size stone, M.O.2 - Lungi, M.O.3 blood stained shirt of his son and M.O.4 - shirt of the accused. In his crossexamination, he admits that the accused and his wife were living separately in the village. The accused was consuming liquor, smoking and gambling. He was switching on the solar in the evening at 6.00 p.m. and locking the gate and in the morning at 6.00 a.m., he used to switch off the solar and was opening the lock. He has supported the case of the prosecution. 16. P.W.2 Nandeesha, who is the injured and son of the complainant has reiterated the evidence of P.W.1 and has further deposed that about three days prior to the incident, the accused had come to their house at 9.00 p.m. and picked up quarrel with Shailaja. At that time, he had told the accused that it was not fair to do like that and he would drive him out of the house. He had also informed the matter to his father and advised him not to do like that. He has further deposed that when he was sleeping on a cot outside the house, his father and others were sleeping inside the house. When the dogs started barking, he woke up and his father switched on the light and enquired with him as to who was that. At that time, when he opened his eyes, he saw the accused holding a size stone and aiming to drop on his head. So he rolled towards his right side and hence he sustained injuries on the left side of his head and shoulder. When his father and other persons came there and his father was trying to catch hold of the accused, at that time, the accused tried to run away and in that process, the accused fell on the ground due to which he suffered injuries on his lips and arm. He has identified material objects - M.Os.1 to 3 and the police have recorded his statement. In his crossexamination, he has deposed that till the date of his evidence, they have not given any share to Shailaja - wife of the accused. He has identified material objects - M.Os.1 to 3 and the police have recorded his statement. In his crossexamination, he has deposed that till the date of his evidence, they have not given any share to Shailaja - wife of the accused. After giving the complaint, neither he nor his father have talked with Shailaja and since that day, Shailaja had gone back and is staying in the house of her husband and as she had gone back against their wish, they were not happy with her. He has supported the case of the prosecution. 17. P.W.3 - Shivabasappa, who is none other than the younger brother of the complainant has not fully supported the prosecution case. He has deposed that while he was lifting Nandeesha to the car, his shirt got stained with blood and he had identified the material objects - M.Os.1 to 5 - one size stone, lungi, blood stained shirt, shirt of the accused and his shirt respectively, but the police have not enquired him in this regard. 18. P.W.4 - Kashinath, another eye witness to the incident has deposed that after the death of the father of Shailaja - P.W.5, Shailaja was residing in the house of the complainant and thereafter, the complainant got her married to the accused. After the marriage, they were living happily for some time and thereafter they started quarrelling. He has identified all the material objects. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not know the personal affairs of Shailaja and after the marriage, she was leading her marital life with her husband. He knew the bad habits of the accused, but he had not seen the same personally and has supported the case of the prosecution. 19. P.W.5 - Shailaja, who is the wife of the accused has not supported the prosecution case has deposed that P.W.1 Rajappa is the son of her Senior Paternal Uncle. Her father died during her young age. Thereafter, her mother and Rajappa had brought her up and they had married her to the accused. In her crossexamination, she has deposed that she was the only daughter to her father and there was partition between her father and the complainant and the share fallen to the share of her father was with P.W.1 -Rajappa. She has further deposed that though she had demanded that share, P.W.1 had not given. In her crossexamination, she has deposed that she was the only daughter to her father and there was partition between her father and the complainant and the share fallen to the share of her father was with P.W.1 -Rajappa. She has further deposed that though she had demanded that share, P.W.1 had not given. She has further deposed that her husband was not in the habit of consuming liquor and gambling. The relationship between herself and her husband was very cordial. On the date of the complaint, she was in her uncle house at Kebbepura. As the mud was watery, Nandeesha slipped and sustained injuries due to fall on the side of washing stone. There was no quarrel between her husband and PWs.1 and 2. Her husband was not hurt and she was staying in Kebbepura itself, since she was not sent. She denied the suggestions that she was living with her husband inevitably and deposing falsely. She has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 20. P.W.6 - Dr. Jagdeesh, has deposed that on 14.3.2011 at about 1.00 a.m. one Nandeesha P.W.2 was brought by Kariyappa - the relative for treatment with the history of assault by his brother-in-law - Prabhuswamy at about 11.45 p.m. on 13.3.2011 and he had sustained two injuries. On examination, he had opined that the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate were simple and fresh in nature and accordingly, he had issued the wound certificate - Ex.P.4. He has admitted the suggestion that injury No.1 is possible, if a person falls on the sharp edge stone or when he slips the leg. He has further stated that he has not examined the knife. 21. P.W.7 - Siddappa, who is the panch witness to Ex.P.2 - spot mahazar has supported the case of the prosecution. 22. P.W.8 - Lokesh claiming to be the eye witness has partly turned hostile to the prosecution case. 23. P.W.9 - K.G. Parameshwarappa, another alleged eye witness to the incident has deposed that on 13.3.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. while he was going near his land, he heard the dog barking and some galata near the land of Rajappa. When he went there and saw, Rajappa and others were holding the accused, Nandeesha P.W.2 was bleeding from his head and shoulder. Thereafter, they took Nandeesha and also the accused, who was given to the custody of the police. When he went there and saw, Rajappa and others were holding the accused, Nandeesha P.W.2 was bleeding from his head and shoulder. Thereafter, they took Nandeesha and also the accused, who was given to the custody of the police. He has turned partly hostile to the prosecution case. 24. P.W.10 - K.S. Prabhuswamy, who is alleged to be another eye witness to the incident, has deposed that on 13.3.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night, while he was going towards his land, the dog was barking and he heard the cries. Being suspicious, he went near the land of Rajappa and on verifying, he saw the accused running away and Rajappa was trying to catch hold of him. He also helped to catch of the accused and Nandeesha - P.W.2 was bleeding from his head and shoulder. He has turned partly hostile to the prosecution case. 25. P.W.11 - Mallikarjuna Prasad, the Station House Officer, Gundlupet Police Station, Gundlupet has deposed that on 13.3.2011 at 2.10 a.m. one Rajappa son of late Muttappa of Keebbepura village had come to the police station and had not only given the complaint - Ex.P.1 but also handed over the accused. Thereafter, he registered a case in Crime No.94/2011 and sent the FIR Ex.P.5 to the Court and the accused to the hospital. Then he handed over the case to Sub-Inspector of Police for further investigation. He has supported the case of the prosecution. 26. P.W.12 - Lakshmikanth Talvar, the Sub- Inspector of Police in Gundlupet Police Station, who took the investigation from P.W.11 - Mallikarjuna Prasad has deposed that he visited the spot on the same day, conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and recovered the material object M.O.1 - One size stone and has supported the case of the prosecution. 27. Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order of acquittal holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 28. 27. Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order of acquittal holding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 28. On meticulous consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it clearly indicates that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the complaint, wherein it states that P.W.1-Rajappa's Junior Paternal Uncle Shivabasappa had only one daughter P.W.5 - Shailaja and after his death, P.W.1 - Rajappa was looking after P.W.5, who was aged about 16 years and he had performed her marriage with the accused. They were having a son aged about 14 years and one daughter aged about 6 years. On perusal of the complaint it clearly depicts that P.W.1 - father of P.W.2 Nandeesha - injured and other witnesses - P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 8 to 10 have not at all deposed as per the allegations made in the complaint but on contrary, have given different versions of their own, which are inconsistent and contradictory to each other on material aspects and against the allegations of the complaint Ex.P.1, which is not at all explained by the prosecution. P.W.5 - Shailaja, the wife of the accused in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination has denied the prosecution case, the incident and details of the incident as alleged against the accused. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve her evidence and hence, her evidence was not helpful to the prosecution case. Hence, she was declared as hostile witness. 29. Taking into consideration the complaint - Ex.P.1, except making the allegations that the accused was having the bad habits or vices, no material either oral or documentary evidence is produced. On the contrary, P.W.5 wife of the accused herself has deposed denying the allegations. Even some of the witnesses have neither spoken about the bad habits and character of the accused nor they do not know him personally. In this regard no independent witnesses are examined. Even the Investigating Officer has not come across the same during the course of his investigation nor has placed any materials in this regard. Even some of the witnesses have neither spoken about the bad habits and character of the accused nor they do not know him personally. In this regard no independent witnesses are examined. Even the Investigating Officer has not come across the same during the course of his investigation nor has placed any materials in this regard. It is also relevant to state that it is the case of the prosecution and its evidence that on the date of the incident, the accused was drunk and had dropped the said stone on P.W.2, but immediately, he was apprehended by P.W.1 - Rajappa and others and was produced before the police and thereafter he was sent for medical examination. The medical certificate produced along with the remand application at the time of producing the accused before the learned Magistrate does not disclose about the accused being drunk at the time and also the injuries on his person. Therefore, it establishes that the prosecution has not proved the allegations made against the accused and has falsely implicated the accused in the incident. 30. As per the evidence of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 - Rajappa and Nandeesha respectively at the time of the incident were in their house along with their woman folk, which was situated in the land measuring 4 acres and around the said land house, there was solar fencing which had a main gate and it used to be locked in the evening after passing solar power to the said fence. The solar power would be stopped in the morning only. During the said period, if anybody requires to come to P.W.1's house, they will have to come through the said main gate by calling inmates to open the lock. But in this case, there is no case and evidence as to existence of any house nearby P.W.1's house or in the vicinity. Therefore, in the absence of any material documents, the alleged incident and details of the incident as alleged by the prosecution against accused creates doubtful. The allegations made in the complaint that P.W.2, son of P.W.1 was sleeping in front of the house at Payal on a cot and P.W.1 was sleeping inside the house. Therefore, in the absence of any material documents, the alleged incident and details of the incident as alleged by the prosecution against accused creates doubtful. The allegations made in the complaint that P.W.2, son of P.W.1 was sleeping in front of the house at Payal on a cot and P.W.1 was sleeping inside the house. When the dog started barking, P.W.1 woke up and came outside, in order to see what was happening, at that time, he saw accused holding a big size stone and was about to drop on the head of his son - P.W.2. As such, when P.W.1 raised hue and cry, P.W.2 woke up and tried to avoid the said stone by turning on his right side on account of which he sustained only simple injuries as alleged. So the alleged incident has taken place in the fraction of minute at night. Hence, there was no occasion for the woman folk of the house or the neighbourers, if any, coming to the spot and seeing the incident which appears to be suspicious and cannot be accepted. 31. It is only the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which has to be considered along with other admitted circumstances like P.W.5's father died long back, P.W.1 bringing P.W.5 in his house, looking after her and even got married her to the accused, both of them frequently coming to P.W.1's house and were comfortably living in P.W.1's house. Since P.Ws.1 and 2 were enjoying the share properties of P.W.5's father, P.W.5 was demanding the said property, but they were not ready to give the said property to P.W.5 - Shailaja. Because of that, they were keeping P.W.5 in their house and were not allowing her to go her husband's house even though she was living with her husband in a different village and was having school going children. Therefore, the accused was also asking P.Ws.1 and 2 to give the share of P.W.5 as per request and in that view, there were differences and exchange of words between them. The material on record clearly depicts that P.W.1's wife was not living with him and on account of the some dispute; she had left him and was living in her parent's house. The material on record clearly depicts that P.W.1's wife was not living with him and on account of the some dispute; she had left him and was living in her parent's house. Even though mother of P.W.5 was alive, there is no whisper by the prosecution as to where actually she was residing and who is looking after her and whether she had demanded her husband's property with P.Ws.1 and 2. 32. The material on record clearly depicts that P.Ws.1 and 2 were enjoying the property of P.W.5's father and she is entitled to the said property legally. Under those circumstances there were differences between P.Ws.1 and 2 and accused - husband of P.W.5 and thereby P.Ws.1 and 2 hatched a plan and had planted a case against him. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature in order to avoid the share to P.W.5 Shailaja's father. When P.W.5 and her husband requested P.Ws.1 and 2, they had refused to give their share and hence there were differences, exchange of words and there were quarrels also. Taking advantage of that P.W.1 had lodged a complaint to implicate falsely the husband of P.W.5 in this criminal case. The learned Sessions Judge considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the evidence on record does not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offences as alleged in the charge memo. 33. Taking into consideration that the dispute is purely a civil dispute with regard to share of the property which had fallen to the share of P.W.5's father and otherwise there was no reason for P.Ws.1 and 2 to implicate the accused falsely in the incident that occurred on 13.3.2011 at 10.00 p.m., when admittedly, P.W.1 was sleeping in the house situated in the land measuring 4 acres which was fenced with solar power and even P.W.1 admitting in his cross-examination that in the evening at about 6.00 p.m., he would switch on the solar power and lock the main gate and only in the morning at 6.00 a.m. he used to switch off the solar power and open the main gate, there was no occasion for the accused to enter the house of P.W.1 at 10.00 p.m. and try to throw the material object M.O.1 -size stone on P.W.2. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge considering the entire material on record in proper prospective, has rightly acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the knife used by the accused as alleged is not recovered at the instance of the accused. 34. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present appeal is answered in the negative holding that the State-appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the well crafted impugned judgment and order of acquittal in exercise of appellate powers of this Court under the provisions of Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. 35. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 27th October, 2014 made in S.C.No.18/2012 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC is just and proper and needs no interference. Accordingly appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits.