JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment dated 8.3.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga in S.C. No. 138/2001. convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and further sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC with default clauses. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.7.2001, at about 9.00 a.m., the accused assaulted C.W. 2 Shekarappa by means of a chopper by abusing him in filthy language, on the ground that the said Shekarappa had slaughtered one Cow behind the house of the accused and he is alleged to have attempted to commit the murder of said Shekarappa C.W. 2 and therefore, he is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 IPC. 3. The Holehonnur Police registered the case and after investigation filed a charge sheet. Where after, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. During the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 15 witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P14 and produced M.Os. 1 to 3. 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Sri S.B. Pavin, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Sathish R. Girji, learned HCGP for the respondent State. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant in this case has given eyewitness account in the complaint, whereas in the Court, he has stated that he was informed by P.W. 3 regarding assault on P.W. 2, He further submits that the number of assaults on injured P.W. 2 are mentioned as 3 in the complaint which are on his head, neck and the hand, whereas, the wound certificate Ex. P7 indicates that the injured has sustained only two injuries. He further submits that the wound certificate Ex. P7 indicates that the injured has sustained only two injuries. He further submits that the wound certificate Ex. P7 refers to some other person and not to the injured P.W. 2, since the description of Injured in Ex. P7 drastically differs from the description of P.W. 2. The injured as per Ex. P7 is explained as a person, cooling (sic) from Kendar Rampura, Harnahalli village and is aged about 25 years, whereas, P.W. 2 in the witness box states that he is aged 25 years as on the date of his deposing before the Court. Further, the learned Counsel submits that the injured as per Ex. P7 was accompanied by one Shivanna, prosecution has not. cited or examined the said Shivanna. He further submits that the doctor P.W. 12 could not identify P.W. 2 before Court and in view of this evidence brought out by the prosecution, there is serious doubt regarding the identity of P.W. 2 the injured person. He further submits that out of 4 witnesses who have spoken regarding the injury, namely P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6, P.W. 1. does not give an eye witness account in the Court, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 are cousin brothers. He further submits that there is enemity between the complainant party and accused party, as the complainant party belongs to Adi-Karnataka and accused party belongs to Adi-Dravida community and that there is a perennial dispute between them. Under the circumstances, he submits that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prays that accused may be acquitted. 7. Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 is supported by the evidence of the doctor and the same is confirmed by the FSL report. He submits that the motive alleged by the accused is double edged weapon, which can be held against the accused for committing the offence of assault, on the background of P.W. 2 slaughtering a cow behind the house of the accused. In this connection, P.W. 2 was made to pay a fine and therefore, accused had previous enemity against P.W. 2. Hence, he submits that the order of conviction may be sustained and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of the complaint by one Ganesh. In this connection, P.W. 2 was made to pay a fine and therefore, accused had previous enemity against P.W. 2. Hence, he submits that the order of conviction may be sustained and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of the complaint by one Ganesh. D on 12.7.2001, before the Holehonnur Police Station. In the said complaint, it is stated that his brother Shekarappa had been to the shop of one Gowdara Chennabasapa at, about 9 a.m., at that time one Manjappa was also present and they were talking to each other. At that time, accused by name Rangappa came near the place, where Shekarappa was talking to Manjappa and started quarrelling with the said Shekarappa regarding slaughtering of Cow and instantly the accused Rangappa held a chopper in his hand and abused Shekarappa, telling him that how he could slaughter a cow behind their colony and so saying he assaulted Shekarappa on his head, neck and hands by means of the said choppper. His brother Shekarappa fell down, thereafter, himself, Manjappa and Nagappa held Shekarappa. Rangappa ran away. It is stated in the complaint that the accused had assaulted Shekarappa in order to kill him. The Police on the basis of the above complaint registered a case in crime No. 140/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 IPC. 9. P.W. 1, has given evidence in the Court stating that they belong to Adi-Karnataka community and the accused belong to Adi-Dravida community and they are residing in different localities. He has stated that about one year nine months prior to deposing before the Court, when his brother Shekarappa was smoking beedi in front of a shop of Chennabasappa, P.W. 3 Manjappa and P.W. 6 Nagappa were also present. After sometime, Manjappa came to him and informed that accused has assaulted Shekarappa by means of a chopper on his head, hands and back and has caused grievous injuries. He immediately went near the shop of Chennabasappa and the accused ran away by threatening him and others and his brother sustained injuries on his head, hands and body and he was bleeding. Thereafter, they got him admitted to Mc.Ganni Hospital, Police have come to the hospital and he had given the complaint in the hospital. He has given the complaint as per Ex. P1. Thereafter, they got him admitted to Mc.Ganni Hospital, Police have come to the hospital and he had given the complaint in the hospital. He has given the complaint as per Ex. P1. It is stated by him that 2 days prior to the incident, his brother and others had slaughtered a Cow behind Adi-Dravida colony and has shared the meat of the Cow. In this connection, the accused raised some dispute and a panchayath was held and his brother was fined by the panchayath and was directed not to slaughter Cows in Adi-Dravida colony. Because of this motive, the accused has assaulted his brother. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that there are about 300 persons of Adi-Karnataka community in Vadeyapura and there are about 100 persons of Adi-Dravida community. There are about 150 other people in the said village. The distance between other localities and the locality of the complainant and the accused is about 1/2 km. The distance between Adi-Karnataka and Adi-Dravida colony is about quarter kilometer. The meat of the cow slaughtered about two days back has been shared by-people of Adi-Kamataka community. 10. It is suggested to him that there was a quarrel regarding sharing of meat between the two communities. But the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1 It is further suggested that the weapon produced as M.O.3 is the chopper used for slaughtering the cow and not used for assaulting of P.W. 2. The said suggestion has been denied. P.W. 2-Shekarappa is the injured. He has stated that on the date of incident, he was talking with P.W. 3, A.K. Manjappa, P.W. 6, A.K. Nagappa and others in front of the shop of Chenna Basappa and at that time, the accused came from behind him and assaulted him on his head. He turned his head and at that time, accused assaulted him by means of a chopper on his shoulder. He raised his hand to prevent further assault and at that time, accused again assaulted him on his hand. Immediately, his eyes became blurred and he could not see. When he woke up, he was in the hospital and thereafter, he has given a statement to the police. It is stated by him that about four days prior to the incident, he had slaughtered a cow. In this connection, there was a quarrel between himself and accused. Immediately, his eyes became blurred and he could not see. When he woke up, he was in the hospital and thereafter, he has given a statement to the police. It is stated by him that about four days prior to the incident, he had slaughtered a cow. In this connection, there was a quarrel between himself and accused. There was a panchayath held in respect of the same and in this connection as a penalty, he had given a buffalo to the God. He has stated that in respect, of this enmity, the accused has assaulted him. 11. In the cross examination, he has stated that apart from the aforesaid four persons, no one else was present at the time of incident and he has given the names of all the four persons, who were present; at the time of incident. It is suggested to him that he has got the habit of committing theft, of cattle and illegally slaughtered them behind the A.D. Colony. This suggestion has been denied by him. It is further suggested to him that in order to hide his theft, he is cutting the cows behind A.D. Colony, instead of cutting behind A.K. Colony. It is further suggested to him that the accused has not assaulted him at all. Out of the enmity between the two communities, a false complaint has been filed. 12. P.W. 3 A.K. Manjappa is examined as an eye witness by the prosecution. He has also stated that on the date of offence, accused has assaulted P.W. 2 on his head, shoulder and hands by means of a chopper. Thereafter, they had shifted the injured to the Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga. He does not know as to why the incident has happened. 13. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he and P.W. 2 are cousin brothers, so also C.Ws. 4 and 5 Nagappa and Hanumathappa are relatives. It is admitted by him that whenever Shekarappa used to slaughter a cow, they were getting a share so also, Nagappa and Hanumanthappa. However, he is not aware of the penalty imposed on P.W. 2 for slaughtering the cow behind A.D. Colony He has further admitted that there was enmity between A.K. Community and A.D. Community. He denied the suggestion that in connection with the slaughtering of cattle and in respect of the said enmity he is deposing falsely before the Court. 14. However, he is not aware of the penalty imposed on P.W. 2 for slaughtering the cow behind A.D. Colony He has further admitted that there was enmity between A.K. Community and A.D. Community. He denied the suggestion that in connection with the slaughtering of cattle and in respect of the said enmity he is deposing falsely before the Court. 14. P.W. 4, J.C. Nandeesha and P.W. 5, Nandeshappa have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W. 6 A.K. Nagappa has also supported the case of prosecution by saying that on the date of incident, accused has assaulted P.W. 2 on his head, shoulder and hand, however, he does not know the reason for such assault but has identified M.O.3, the weapon used by accused to assault P.W. 2. It Is suggested to him that he is not an eye witness on the date of incident and no incident as told by him has at all happened on the date of alleged incident. 16. P.W. 7, R. Lokeshappa is the signatory to Ex. P4, which is a spot mahazar. 17. P.W. 8, Hanumanthappa is the signatory to Ex. P5 under which police have seized chopper-M.O. 3, at the instance of the accused from the house of accused. 18. P.W. 9, H.R. Hanumanthappa is a signatory to Ex. P6, in which the police have seized the shirt and towel belonging to P.W. 2. 19. P.W. 10, K. Subbaraya, the P.S.I of Holehonnur Police Station has drawn Ex. P8 under which M.Os. I and 2 (shirt and towel) of P.W. 2 were seized. He has further carried the blood sample of P.W. 2 to F.S.L. Davanagere. He has received Ex. P7, the wound certificate and handed over it to the A.S.I. 20. P.W. 11 Krishna Jois is the A.S.I, who has received the articles from the F.S.L, Davanagere and filed a charge sheet in this ease. 21. P.W. 12 Dr. Jagadeeshwari, has stated that on 12.7.2001 at about 12.05 p.m., she had examined one Shekarappa, aged about. 25 years of Hamahaili village, who was brought to the hospital by one Shivanna with the history of assault on 12.7.2001 itself. She has stated that the injured had sustained two injuries on his person out of which injury M.O. 2 is grievous in nature. She has opined that M.O.3-chopper could cause the injuries mentioned by her in the Wound Certificate, Ex. She has stated that the injured had sustained two injuries on his person out of which injury M.O. 2 is grievous in nature. She has opined that M.O.3-chopper could cause the injuries mentioned by her in the Wound Certificate, Ex. P7 issued by her. However, she could not specifically identify the injured, P.W. 2 before the Court because of long lapse of time. 22. In the cross examination, she has stated that she has treated one Shekarappa of Harnahalli Taluk. 23. P.W. 12 was further examined in chief by the Public Prosecutor after summoning the Original Accident Register, On perusal of the Original Accident Register, P.W. 12 has deposed that she has examined one Shekarappa s/o Durgappa of Kundur Ramapura of Harnahalli Taluk and he was brought, by one Shivanna. The injured had come before the Court on the said date after having a shave and thereafter the Doctor has identified the accused by looking at the black mole on the left cheek. It is suggested to P.W. 12 that Ex. P7 and Ex. P7(b) does not pertain to P.W. 2, Shekarappa which suggestion has been denied by P.W. 1. 24. P.W. 13 H. Ramabovi is the Police Constable who has carried the articles to F.S.L. Davanagere and after completion of test on them, he had brought back the said articles from F.S.L and handed over it to the Investigating Officer. 25. P.W. 14. Devadas Kamath is the Constable who has brought, blood sample of P.W. 2 from the hospital and thereafter taken the same to the F.S.L, Davanagere. 26. P.W. 15, R.S. Ujjanappa is the P.S.I. He has registered a case in Crime No. 140/2001 for offences under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC and prepared F.I.R and sent the same to the Court, conducted spot panchnama and thereafter recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and deputed the staff to arrest the accused and after completion of investigation, he has handed over the file to his successor, who has filed the charge sheet. 27. 27. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is seen that there is a glaring discrepancy regarding the nature of injuries sustained by P.W. 2 and the number of injuries sustained by him, so also his identity, while all the witnesses say that the accused had assaulted P.W. 2 on his head, neck and hand and there are three specific assaults mentioned by all the eye witnesses which according to them has caused three specific visible bleeding injuries on the person of P.W. 2. Ex. P7 states that the injured Shekarappa has sustained only two injuries and item No. 3 in Ex. P7 is regarding X-ray of the portion of injury caused at serial No. 2. Therefore, according to P.W. 12, the Medical Officer, the injured Shekarappa as mentioned in Ex. P7 had sustained only two injuries whereas the definite case of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6, who are the injured and eye witnesses is that Shekarappa had sustained three visible bleeding injuries. Secondly, it is seen that, the injured, Shekarappa as per Ex. P7 was belonging to Harnahally Taluk whereas, while deposing before the Court P.W. 2 has stated that, he belongs to Wodeyarapura Village of Bahdravathi Taluk. It is further seen from Ex. P7 that injured was accompanied by one Shivanna whereas, the police have not even laid their hands at and the prosecution has not explained as to who the said Shivanna is. The prosecution had further tried to clarify in the further examination of P.W. 12 that the injured mentioned in Ex. P7 is a person from Kundur, Rampura of Haranahalli Taluk and further she has identified P.W. 2 on the basis of a mole said to be present on the left cheek of P.W. 2. It is to be seen that, at the first instance also, when P.W. 12 saw P.W. 2, the same person was present before the Court, and P.W. 12 has stated that due to lapse of time, she cannot identify P.W. 2. From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 12 on one hand and the documents Ex. It is to be seen that, at the first instance also, when P.W. 12 saw P.W. 2, the same person was present before the Court, and P.W. 12 has stated that due to lapse of time, she cannot identify P.W. 2. From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 12 on one hand and the documents Ex. P1, complaint and P-7 and P-7A on the other hand, a serious doubt arises as to whether the same person who is injured in the incident has been examined before the Court or it is the same person who has been examined before the Court is referred to in Ex. P7 Wound Certificate and whether it is the same person who has been examined by P.W. 12 in the hospital as on the date of incident. The prosecution has not been able to overcome this discrepancy which is glaring in nature. On the background of the fact, that there was a serious dispute between A.K. Community and A.D. Community regarding the slaughtering of cow and sharing of meat, it is doubtful as to whether the same person has been presented before the Doctor and before the Court. The prosecution has not been able to explain the obvious discrepancy regarding the number of injuries, while the witnesses and the injured state that P.W. 2 was assaulted three times, the Doctor is very specific to say that there were only two visible injuries, 28. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to connect the act alleged with the person and the documents produced in this case and necessarily, the benefit of doubt arising out of these glaring and serious discrepancies shall enure to the accused, In that view of the matter, I. hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the appeal is entitled to be allowed, Therefore, the following order: 29. Appeal is allowed. 30. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, for the offences under Section 324 and 326 of 1PC is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offences levelled against him. Bails bonds, if any, executed by him are cancelled. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to him.