JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.11.2004, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Sessions Case No. 29/2002 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a. fine of Rs. 100/- each for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with default clauses. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 1.9.1999 at about 1.30 p.m., when C.W. 1 Sarvamangala was washing clothes in front of the vacant place, built in house No. 1/102 at Bacchenahatti village within the limits of Tavarekere Police Station, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of assaulting C.Ws. 1 to 3 and thereafter, holding lethal weapons like clubs, muchu, broken wicket, stump, chain, iron pipe, stone and etc, they trespassed into the lands bearing K. No. 1/102 and assaulted C.W. 1 Sarvamangala with an intention to commit her murder, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. It is further alleged that on the said date, place and time, the accused have wrongfully caused damage to the property of the complainant by damaging the stone pillars, removing the barbed wire fence, coconut saplings, vegetable plants etc., and thereafter they had outraged the modesty of C.W. 1, by putting hand into her blouse, thus, they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 323, 324, and 354 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 13 witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 13 and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P18 and produced M.Os. 1 to 13. 4. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. They have examined Dr. Sreekantaswamy as DW 1 and got marked Exs. 1 to 5 in their defence. 5. During the course of examination of P.W. 1, the Court, got marked Ex. P1 to P18 and produced M.Os. 1 to 13. 4. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. They have examined Dr. Sreekantaswamy as DW 1 and got marked Exs. 1 to 5 in their defence. 5. During the course of examination of P.W. 1, the Court, got marked Ex. C1 as the document on behalf of the Court, However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused Nos. 1 to 13 of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and convicted accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused have filed this appeal. 6. Heard Sri H.M. Thimmarayappa, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the respondent State. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution in this case has been erroneously filed to settle the civil dispute between the parties. Both the complainant and the accused No. 6 claim the ownership of the property in question, namely survey K. No. 1/102 situated in Bacchenahatti village. Both P.W. 1 the complainant and accused No. 6 are the members of one family and the property situated in Baechenahatti village was partitioned among accused No. 6 and husband of the complainant and their other brothers. Accused No. 6 had secured an order of temporary injunction against the complainant in respect of the said property. However, the complainant, was claiming a share in the property of her father-in-law, which included the disputed plot. He further submits that the prosecution has not come up with the clean hands and that the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 were severely injured in the incident, whereas, the complainant has suppressed the very injuries sustained by the accused. The other witnesses have also not mentioned anything about the injuries sustained by accused Nos. 1, (sic) and 8. DW. 1 Dr. Sreekaritaswamy, categorically states that the accused have sustained injuries. He further submits that investigation in this case has not been conducted impartially and only to help the complainant, certain additions are made in the complaint given by P.W. 1 which is got marked as Ex. D1 and Exs. 1, (sic) and 8. DW. 1 Dr. Sreekaritaswamy, categorically states that the accused have sustained injuries. He further submits that investigation in this case has not been conducted impartially and only to help the complainant, certain additions are made in the complaint given by P.W. 1 which is got marked as Ex. D1 and Exs. D1 a, b and c. He submits that though the complaint states that the accused had snatched the chain of the complainant, the investigation report is silent as to the said aspect. It is further submitted by him that the say of P.W. 1 that she herself has written the complaint is falsified by the documents marked by the Court, as Ex. C1, which handwriting differs from the hand writing in the complaint. He further submits that entire case has been twisted with the assistance of one Shivanna who is the police official and related to the complainant. Under the circumstances, he submits that the order of conviction is bad in law and prays for acquittal of the accused. 8. Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the respondent State submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is cogent and clear and all 3 of them have stated regarding the assault by the accused on P.Ws. 1 to 3, which is supported by the evidence of P.W. 9 the medical officer. He further that submits that though there is a civil dispute between the parties, accused No. 1 to 13 could not have taken the law into their hands and they have destroyed the barbed wire fence surrounding the property of the complainant and also have caused damage to the pillars and other articles. It is also clear that the accused have attempted to outrage the modesty of P.W. 1. Under the circumstances, the order of conviction passed against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 is based on the evidence and does not call for interference. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 9. The proceedings in this case commenced with filing of the complaint, by C.W. 1 Sarvamangala before the Tavarekere Police Station, Bangalore Rural District on 1.9.1999. 1, 3 and 6 is based on the evidence and does not call for interference. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 9. The proceedings in this case commenced with filing of the complaint, by C.W. 1 Sarvamangala before the Tavarekere Police Station, Bangalore Rural District on 1.9.1999. In the said complaint, it is mentioned by her that the property in K. No. 1/102 of Bacchenahatti village, belongs to her and in front of her house, there is a vacant land which has been fenced by her and the said property is used by her for planting coconut saplings and flower plants. Accused No. 8 Somashekaraiah is the brother of her father-in-law and he is claiming the said land and has filed a case in the Court. However, she has secured a temporary injunction order in respect of the said land. Since, the land was not given to his possession, on 1.9.1999, the accused No. 6 Somashekaraiah came in ambassador car bearing No. KA 4118 at about 1.30 in the afternoon alongwith some other persons who came in a scooter bearing No. MER 4722. The said persons were holding chopper, cycle chain, spade and clubs. Thereafter, the children of A6 Somashekaraiah sons Al Devaraj, A2 Mallesh, A3 Manohara, A5 Jagadish, A12 Channamma, daughters-in-law namely A10 Chinnamma, A11. Dhrakshayinamma and A13 Kamalamma, grandsons A8 Vinay, A9 Mahesh, A7 Manjunatha trespassed into the aforesaid disputed property and started removing the barbed wire fence and the stone pillars. She went inside to bring the camera and took out the photographs of the persons who were causing damage to her property. At that time, accused No. 6 and others put their hands into her chest and tried to outrage her modesty and thereafter, A6 and his wife Chenamma started quarrelling with her. A6 told other accused to assault the complainant and the daughters-in-law of A6 namely Chinamma. Dhrakshayinamma and Kamalamma assaulted her by means of clubs on her right arm, left hand and stomach. She raised alarm and at that time, her sister by name Gangamma came near the scene of occurrence. The accused No. 6 Somashekaraiah told his children to assault Gangamma also and they assaulted Gangamma with a chopper. Manohara A3 assaulted Gangamma with a machu. A1 Devraj and A5 Jagadish assaulted by hands and caused injuries, at that time, her brother Neelakantaiah came running to her rescue. The accused No. 6 Somashekaraiah told his children to assault Gangamma also and they assaulted Gangamma with a chopper. Manohara A3 assaulted Gangamma with a machu. A1 Devraj and A5 Jagadish assaulted by hands and caused injuries, at that time, her brother Neelakantaiah came running to her rescue. Accused Somashekaraiah instigated others to assault all of them and to finish them and thereafter, all the accused assaulted her, her sister Gangamraa and the said Neelakanta extensively by means of chopper, sickle and iron pipes and other lethel weapons and they started bleeding. Neelakanta fell down and the accused started plucking the coconut saplings and the flower plants and damaged the entire area. During the incident, the Mangalya chain and one neck chain has been snatched by Somashekaraiah and his children. By that, time, people from the village gathered and they removed the complainant and the other injured to the hospital. Thereafter, she has come to the police station and gave the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the Tavarekere Police registered the case in crime No. 156/1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 147, 148, 307, 824, 323, 354, 447, 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and commenced investigation. After completion of the Investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against 13 persons. During the trial the complainant has been examined as P.W. 1, She has reiterated the version given by her in the compliant. She has stated that all the accused persons had come on the date of the incident to her house and had committed the act of trespass and mischief and also tried to outrage her modesty. She has stated that accused have assaulted her and C.Ws. 2 and 3 with the intention to murder her. It is further stated that she was taken to the Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter, to the Victoria hospital. They were taken to the Tavarekere Government Hospital before coming to Bangalore, where C.Ws. 2 and 3 were given first aid and at the advise of the doctor at Tavarekere Hospital, they were removed to Victoria hospital, Bangalore. She has identified all the accused before the Court, who are the relatives of her husband and also the weapons and other articles seized as per M.Os. 1-12. In the cross-examination, she has denied regarding the injuries caused on accused Nos. She has identified all the accused before the Court, who are the relatives of her husband and also the weapons and other articles seized as per M.Os. 1-12. In the cross-examination, she has denied regarding the injuries caused on accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 on the date of the offence. She has also denied the fact of accused No. 6 obtaining a temporary injunction against her in respect of the said property. It is suggested to her that the property in dispute does not belong to her, however, she has denied the said suggestion. It is further suggested to her that a false case has been filed by her after having failed to establish her ownership in the Civil Court regarding the vacant site in front of her house, at the instigation and assistance of Shivanna, who is working as a Police Inspector, and who is related to them. P.W. 2 Gangamma is an injured witness and is sister of P.W. 1 Sarvamangala. She has stated that on the date of the incident all the accused came near the property which is adjacent to her house and in front of the house of P.W. 1. It is stated by her that A1 Devraj told to other accused to assault her as she had come to the support of P.W. 1 Sarvamangala. She has stated that A3 Manohara assaulted on her head and she sustained grievous Injuries. A2 Malleshaiah assaulted by iron pipe and Al assaulted by repiece patti on her right hand. A5 Jagadisha fisted her on her back. A10 to A13 assaulted her by surrounding her and she sustained, severe injuries. In the cross-examination, certain improvements are elicited through her. However, she has stated that such statement are given by her to the police. P.W. 3 Neelakanthaiah has also deposed before the Court regarding the incident dated 1.9.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. He is running a petty shop near the house of complainant and on hearing the quarrel, he came near the scene of occurrence. He has stated that accused were assaulting P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.Ws. 1 and 2 had suffered injuries. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to him that all that he has stated before the Court is an improvement, and that he has not stated before the police about the said facts. He has stated that accused were assaulting P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.Ws. 1 and 2 had suffered injuries. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to him that all that he has stated before the Court is an improvement, and that he has not stated before the police about the said facts. It, is further suggested that he is deposing falsely in order to assist P.W. 1. to claim the property illegally from the hands of accused No. 6, who is the lawful owner of the property in question. P.Ws. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 6 Shailaja has stated that P.W. 3 is her husband and the incident took place on 1.9.1999 at about 2 p.m. On that day, police had come to her house and asked her to point out the spot. Accordingly, she identified the spot before the police and the police prepared a spot mahazar as per Ex. P2. P.W. 9 is the medical officer, who has stated that on 1.9.1999 at about 8.25 p.m., he has examined P.W. 3 Neelakantaiah who had sustained 3 simple injuries on his person. He has stated that, on the same day he has examined P.W. 2 Gangamma who has suffered 2 injuries on her person. The said injuries are simple in nature. In the cross-examination, it is brought out that the Investigation officer has not shown any weapons to him. However, in the further chief-examination, the learned Prosecutor has produced the weapons and has identified M.Os. 8-11 as the weapons through which injuries mentioned in Exs. P5 and P6 could be caused. P.W. 12 is the Police constable who has carried the FIR to the residence of the Magistrate on 1.9.1999 and submitted the same at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 13 is the Investigation Officer who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tavarekere Police Station. After registering the case in crime No. 156/1999, he has conducted the investigation, arrested the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 on the next day and thereafter, recorded the statements of accused as well as witnesses, recovered the articles by holding spot panchanama and thereafter, filed a charge sheet against the accused. After registering the case in crime No. 156/1999, he has conducted the investigation, arrested the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 on the next day and thereafter, recorded the statements of accused as well as witnesses, recovered the articles by holding spot panchanama and thereafter, filed a charge sheet against the accused. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that accused were also injured in this case and accused were present in the Police Station, who were referred to the Primary Health Center at Tavarekere for the treatment of the injuries caused, on them and that the doctor in Tavarekere is just opposite to the Police Station, according to this witness. The improvement, and contradictions of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are confronted with P.W. 13. The accused were questioned regarding their complicity in this case in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. A1 Devraj has submitted the certified copy of the order issued in OS. No. 147/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Magadi and the plaint in the said case as also the complaint filed by one Dhrakshayinamma before the Sub-Inspector Rural Police Station dated 1.9.1999 against Shivananda, Neelakantaiah and others. Thereafter, the accused have got examined DW. 1 Dr. Srikantaswamy who is the medical officer of Primary Health Centre, Tavarekere during September 1999. The doctor has stated that on 1.9.1999, at about 3 p.m., accused No. 3 Manohar came to the hospital with the history of assault by Gangarnma and Sarvamangala with chopper near Bachenahatti at 3 p.m. The said Manohar had 2 injuries on his person. He has also stated that he has examined one Somashekaraiah in respect of the wound at Ex. D4 wound certificate issued by him. He has also stated that, he has examined one Devraj on the same day, who was found to have sustained injuries on his person, as per Ex. D5. He has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor and it is suggested that, he is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused. 10. It is from the evidence of these witnesses, that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and has convicted them as aforesaid. 11. On a careful consideration of the entire material on record, I find that there is a serious civil dispute between the parties. 10. It is from the evidence of these witnesses, that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and has convicted them as aforesaid. 11. On a careful consideration of the entire material on record, I find that there is a serious civil dispute between the parties. Both the parties are claiming ownership in respect of the piece of land and have been fighting in the Civil Court to establish their rights. The accused and the injured are closely related to each other. From the evidence of P.W. 1 and DW. 1, it is clear that the complainant has suppressed the fact that, the accused have suffered injuries on their person. P.Ws. 2 and 8 have also not whispered a word regarding the injuries suffered by the accused. On careful observation on Exs. D3 to D5, it is found that the injuries sustained by the accused are serious. Under the circumstances, despite the fact that there were 13 persons who had come on the date of the offence, the witnesses would have noticed the injuries caused on the accused. Having suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused, the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and the prosecution has suppressed the very genesis of the crime and different story is sought to be presented before the Court. On a careful consideration on Ex. P1, the complaint; though P.W. 1 admits that the same is in her handwriting, when P.W. 1 was asked to write a few lines in the Court, which is got. marked by the Court as Ex. C1, her handwriting differs from the one in the complaint Ex. P1 and it is not possible to hold that P.W. 1 has written the complaint herself. There are some additions in the complaint marked as Ex. P1 (A, B and C) which are not initialed and therefore, there is a suspicion regarding the very originality of the complaint. The portion, marked as Ex. D1 in Ex. P1 further creates suspicion in the mind of the Court, as to whether P.W. 1 herself is the author of the complaint. P1 (A, B and C) which are not initialed and therefore, there is a suspicion regarding the very originality of the complaint. The portion, marked as Ex. D1 in Ex. P1 further creates suspicion in the mind of the Court, as to whether P.W. 1 herself is the author of the complaint. Under the circumstances, it is not safe to believe the version contained in the complaint as the one given by P.W. 1, Further, it could be seen that there is glaring discrepancy between the description of the weapons said to have been used by the accused on the date of the offence. There is no specific and clear overt act alleged against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 and the evidence of the witnesses indicate that all the accused have assaulted by means of weapons mentioned in the complaint. Under the circumstances, it is not safe to pinpoint at accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 as persons who have committed the offence. Even, the doctor P.W. does not specifically say as to which weapon is used for which of the offence on which of the persons. Under the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not clear, cogent and convincing to hold that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are liable to be convicted. In that view of the matter, I hold that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are also entitled for benefit of doubt, as it is given to other accused. Under the circumstances, I hold that conviction recorded against the accused is not based on clear evidence on record and therefore, they are entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction recorded against the appellants is hereby set aside. The bail bonds executed by them, if any are cancelled. Fine amount deposited, if any, by them shall be refunded to them.