JUDGMENT B.V. Pinto, J.— This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 16.08.2004 passed by the III Addl. S.J., Tumkur in S.C. No. 9/03 acquitting the Respondents of the offences punishable Under Sections. 143, 147, 148, 427, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.03.2002 at 7.30 a.m. in Lakshmidevarahalli village within the jurisdiction of Turuvekere Police Station, all the accused persons have formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like clubs and wooden reapers and with common object to commit an act of rioting with deadly weapons, committed the murder of deceased Huchhegowda. Thereafter, they had voluntarily caused hurt to CW1 - Nagarathnamma, CW2 - Boregowda, CW3 - Raju, CW4 - Kempegowda and CW5 - Chidananda and wrongfully confined the said persons and caused death of Huchhegowda by murdering him and further they had caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence by throwing the deadbody of Huchegowda in a tank by tying stone to it, thereby they are alleged to have committed offence Under Sections. 144, 148, 427, 324, 342, 302, 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. 3. In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined in all 32 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P44 and produced M. Os.1 to 10. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and they got marked Exs.D1 to D2 in their defence. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court and therefore, he has acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. The State has filed this appeal. 4. In this case the prosecution has commenced the investigation on the basis of complaint given by PW1 -Nagarathnamma on 07.03.2000 before the Turuvekere Police Station. In the said complaint the complainant has stated that her husband by name Huchhegowda had purchased some properties in their village and in connection with the said purchase of the property, there was enmity between her husband and the villagers and there were disputes between them but nevertheless they were living peacefully. In the said complaint the complainant has stated that her husband by name Huchhegowda had purchased some properties in their village and in connection with the said purchase of the property, there was enmity between her husband and the villagers and there were disputes between them but nevertheless they were living peacefully. She has stated that about 15 days prior to the date of incident, some accused persons by name Shivaiah, Madaiah and Rudraiah had forcibly puts hut in the property purchased by her husband. In this connection her husband was interested in calling panchayath and on 6.3.2002 he had requested people from his village and some relatives to convene panchayath and her husband has called them to come for the panchayath and said persons had in fact come to the panchayath. Since the accused persons did not co-operate for holding panchayath, the said panchayathdars had remained in her house. On the next day on 7.3.2000 at 7 00 a.m., her husband and others went near the property purchased by her husband. At that time one Shivaiah s/o. Gangaiah - Accused No. 7 asked her husband as to why they had come. Since the land belongs to her husband at 7.30 a.m. herself, her husband Huchhegowda came back to their house. At that time, Accused No. 1 - Rangappa, Accused No. 2 - Manjanna, Accused No. 3 - Ramegowda, Accused No. 4 -Amasegowda, Accused No. 5 - Vijayanna, Accused No. 6 -Basavashetty, Accused No. 7 - Shivaiah, Accused No. 8 -Madaiah, Accused No. 9 - Rudraiah and all other accused persons came near the place where they were standing and abused them saying that her husband should leave the land which has been taken by him by exercising fraud and they started pelting stones on the house of the deceased and they have assaulted the persons who had come to panchayath. They have also assaulted herself and others by means of stones and other weapons in their hands. At that time, her husband escaped from the clutches of the accused and ran away. At that time, one Rangappa - Accused No. 1 Manjanna - Accused No. 2 and Vasantha - Accused No. 21 chased her husband and they are not aware as to when; her husband had gone. The accused persons have caused injuries and caused damaged to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. At that time, one Rangappa - Accused No. 1 Manjanna - Accused No. 2 and Vasantha - Accused No. 21 chased her husband and they are not aware as to when; her husband had gone. The accused persons have caused injuries and caused damaged to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence stating the above facts, she has filed complaint before the police on 7.3.2002 at 3.30 p.m. It is further seen from the prosecution papers that again the said Nagarathnamma has given second complaint on 8.3.2002 at about 23.00 hours before the same police station. In the second complaint, it is stated that in furtherance of the first complaint given by her, she has included names of 21 accused persons in her second complaint and she has stated that all of them have chased her husband and have caused injuries by some weapon to her husband and her husband has been thrown to pond by tying his hands and caused his murder, thereby all the accused persons have committed an offence punishable Under Sections. 302 and 201 IPC along with the sections which are mentioned earlier. The police have registered second complaint and started investigation and filed charge sheet before the Court. 5. In the court the complainant is examined as PW1. She has stated before the Court that it was accused No. 1, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 21 who chased her husband and assaulted her husband and caused the murder. She has also stated that the accused persons assaulted her and other injured eyewitnesses in this case. 6. PW5 - Boregowda is a eyewitness to the incident of assault on the deceased. He has stated before the Court that when he was standing in front of the house of the deceased, he came to know that there is quarrel taking place in Lakshmidevarahalli village. His village is at a distance of 3 kms from the village in question. He went to the place where quarrel was taking place on his motor cycle. He asked Nagarathnamma as to why she has lodged complaint. It is in his evidence that the accused came in front of house of Gangadharaiah where he saw Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 23, 16, 8, 15, 9, 14, 13 and 22 assaulting Huchhegowda with stones. Accused No. 1 assaulted Huchegowda with a club. He asked Nagarathnamma as to why she has lodged complaint. It is in his evidence that the accused came in front of house of Gangadharaiah where he saw Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 23, 16, 8, 15, 9, 14, 13 and 22 assaulting Huchhegowda with stones. Accused No. 1 assaulted Huchegowda with a club. Accused No. 12 assaulted the deceased with a reaper patti and Huchegowda sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. He saw Gangadharaiah telling something to the accused. But he could not hear. It is in the evidence of PW.5 that Accused Nos. 8, 15, 4, 23, 16, 22, 12 and 11 by holding hands and legs of the deceased Huchhegowda, went towards garden land. The other accused persons went to Lakshmidevarahalli. He was watching all these events by standing at a distance of 25 meters. Shivaramegowda was also present with him. They have not gone to rescue Huchegowda because of fear and they came back to Gandhigrama and from there, they went to Manchenahalli on his motor cycle. Having seen this incident, he felt feverish and therefore, went to Bellur Hospital and on the next day at about 9 O' clock himself and Shivaramegowda went to Lakshmidevarahalli. By that time, the police had come and were doing mahazar. He has signed Ex.P2 - mahazar prepared by the police. 7. PW20 - Shivaramegowda is also another eyewitness to the incident. He has stated that he is from the village of Manchenahalli which is at a distance of 5 to 6 kms from Kadehalli and the distance between Kadehalli and Lakshmidevarahalli is about 2 kms. He has further stated that on the date of incident, he went to the house of Boregowda on a motor cycle. Himself and Boregowda came to the house of Huchegowda at 7.30 a.m. and they saw Huchegowda's house being damaged and he saw tile pieces, stones and clubs and even the food grains were wasted. PW1 was there. Raja, Huchegowda and another Boregowda were lied to a pole. When he enquired about the incident, they told that villagers did quarrel and villagers means Rangappa, Ramegowda, Nagegowda, Shivegowda, Amasegowda, Nagesha and others. Those persons are present before the Court. The four persons were tied to a pole and had been assaulted. He and Boregowda saw deceased being chased by those, whose names he deposed before the Court. When he enquired about the incident, they told that villagers did quarrel and villagers means Rangappa, Ramegowda, Nagegowda, Shivegowda, Amasegowda, Nagesha and others. Those persons are present before the Court. The four persons were tied to a pole and had been assaulted. He and Boregowda saw deceased being chased by those, whose names he deposed before the Court. But, they did not go for his rescue. Then Nagegowda. Shivegowda, Madaiah and others carried the dead body of Huchegowda towards Oni. He did not go to rescue Huchegowda because he was afraid. On the next day morning at 9.00 a.m. they came to Lakshmidevarahalli and they saw police doing mahazar. 8. It is from the evidence of these two witnesses -PW5 and PW20 coupled with the evidence of injured PW1, PW3 and PW4, the prosecution submits that the case of the prosecution has been proved and that the accused are guilty of the offence levelled against them. The other witnesses in this case are investigating officers and doctor. PW16 -Dr. Ravindra Naik who has treated the injured and PW21 -Dr. Nanjappa is the person who has conducted Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 9. It is from the evidence of these eyewitnesses the learned Sessions Judge has held that the evidence is not inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court and therefore, acquitted the accused. The State has filed this appeal. 10. Heard Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned SPP and Sri A.H. Bhagawan, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 11. Sri Bhavani Singh submits that the evidence of PW.5 & PW.20 coupled with evidence of injured eyewitness clearly indicates that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 21 along with others had caused injuries to the deceased and caused the death. Thereafter, his dead body has been thrown into water pond. Therefore, the evidence of eyewitnesses and the evidence of injured are safe to convict the accused persons. Sri A.H. Bhagawan on the other submits that the evidence of PW5 and PW20 is artificial and the evidence tendered by him saying that after seeing the incident they were afraid of the accused therefore, went away to their village is not believable on the ground that they are panchayathdars and village elders. Sri A.H. Bhagawan on the other submits that the evidence of PW5 and PW20 is artificial and the evidence tendered by him saying that after seeing the incident they were afraid of the accused therefore, went away to their village is not believable on the ground that they are panchayathdars and village elders. Therefore, it was their duty to inform the police about the incident immediately after seeing the deceased being assaulted by accused persons and the conduct of PW5 and PW20 does not inspire confidence. Further, it is seen that the name of PW5 and PW20 is not mentioned in the FIR, which states that her husband is done to death. In so far as the PW20 - eyewitness to the incident is concerned, he should have immediately informed PW1 regarding the incident and but his name along with overt acts did not find place in second FIR. He further submits that the wound certificates of Nagarathnamma indicate name of Ramegowda, Shivaiah and Rudraiah, Accused Nos. 3, 7 and 9 in the charge sheet. The wound certificates of Chandranna, Boregowda, Raju and Kempegowda also mentions the names of these three accused persons. Whereas according to eye witness account, and according to the complaint, A-2 and A21 had chased the deceased and who were responsible for the death of the deceased. 12. On a careful consideration of the entire related on record we observe that the discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, 2 to 4 on the one hand and PW 5 and PW 20 on the other hand and the wound certificates Ex.P13 to Ex.P17 is not reconcilable to the guilt of the accused. Under the circumstance, non-mention of names of PW5 and PW 20 and also names of A2 and A21 specifically in the second FIR, exonerates A2, A21 and other accused. In that view of the matter, the prosecution case against all the accused is not cogent, clear and convincing. Further it is seen that in the evidence of PW3 and PW 5, they have stated the fact that the accused chased the deceased from the scene of occurrence. In that view of the matter, the prosecution case against all the accused is not cogent, clear and convincing. Further it is seen that in the evidence of PW3 and PW 5, they have stated the fact that the accused chased the deceased from the scene of occurrence. Under the circumstances, the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused appears to be sound and proper, in view of the above and on re-appreciation of the entire materials on record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for interference at our hands. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the appeal is dismissed.