JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—This appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) Cr.P.C. by the State represented by Kengeri Gate Police Station, Bangalore City against the judgment dated 30.6.2006 in S.C. No. 88/2004 on the file of the II Additional City Sessions and Special Judge Bangalore, where by the accused were acquitted for the offences under Sections 328 and 307 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: The complainant, Doddaiah and his wife Nagarathnainma belongs to Adi Karnataka Caste Accused 1 and 2 belong to Okkaliga community. On 7.1.2008 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused with a common intention picked up quarrel and assaulted P.W. 2, Nagarathnamma. In the meanwhile, P.W. 1, Doddaiah went there to rescue P.W. 2. The accused 1 to 3 with a common intention to take away the life of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, attacked them with deadly weapons and also abused them in filthy language knowing fully well that they belong to Adi Karnataka Caste and thereby insulted them. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W. 1 (Doddaiah), the S.H.O. Jnanabharathi Police registered a case in Crime No. 8/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC and also under Section 3(i)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act.), 1989. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and seized the weapons M.Os. 3 and 4 said to have been used for the commission of offence. They sent the injured persons to the Government Hospital for treatment. P.W. 6, Dr. Girija, the Medical Officer, who treated the injured persons, issued wound certificates Exs. P9 and P10 stating that P.Ws. 1 and 2 suffered simple injuries. Alter completion of investigation, Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet. After hearing the learned SPP and learned Counsel for accused, the learned trial Judge framed charges against accused for offences punishable under Sections 328 and 307 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act.). 3. The plea of accused is one of total denial. 4. To bring home, the guilt of accused for the aforestated offences, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P18 and material objects as per M.Os. 1 to 4. 5. 3. The plea of accused is one of total denial. 4. To bring home, the guilt of accused for the aforestated offences, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P18 and material objects as per M.Os. 1 to 4. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused not guilty of offences for which they are charged. 6. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri N. Mahalinga. Bhat and Sri M. Girish learned Counsel for accused. We have been taken through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that accused No. 1 died during the pendency of trial and, therefore, the case against accused No. 1 abates. 9. The learned Counsel for accused 2 and 3 submitted that there are no independent eye witnesses to the incident. The only independent eye witness, P.W. 3, did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not consistent and corroborative in all material particulars. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly recorded the acquittal of accused for the offences for which they are charged. 10. The learned. Public Prosecutor submitted that accused caused injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2, abused them taking out the name of their caste, as they belong to weaker sections of society, therefore, the accused are liable for punishment. 11. According to the prosecution, on 7.1.2003, at about 8.30 p.m., accused 1 to 3 picked up quarrel with P.W. 2 in front, of her house and abused her taking out the name of her caste as ‘Madiga’ and assaulted her. When P.W. 1 intervened, he was also assaulted and he was also abused by the accused as ‘Holeya Madiga’. 12. In the evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that on 7.1.2003, he saw accused 1 and 3 quarreling with his wile (P.W. 2). When he intervened, accused No. 1 assaulted him with a chopper and accused No. 8 assaulted him with a rod. He suffered injuries on his shoulder and both the knees. 13. 12. In the evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that on 7.1.2003, he saw accused 1 and 3 quarreling with his wile (P.W. 2). When he intervened, accused No. 1 assaulted him with a chopper and accused No. 8 assaulted him with a rod. He suffered injuries on his shoulder and both the knees. 13. P.W. 2, Nagarathnamma has stated in her evidence that on 7.1.2003 at about 8.30 p.m., when she was in her house, accused 1 and 3 came and picked up quarrel with her and abused her as ‘Holeya Madiga’. P.W. 2 had stated that accused No. 3 switched off the street light by disconnecting power supply and abused her as ‘Holeya Madigaru’. When P.W. 2 questioned accused No. 3, he assaulted her. Then P.W. 1 came on his bicycle and intervened, the accused left P.W. 2 and went towards P.W. 1 and took him out of the cycle and accused No. 3 brought an iron rod from inside the house and gave it to accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 assaulted P.W. 1 with an iron rod. Accused No. 3 after giving rod to accused No. 1 held P.W. 2 and accused No. 1 assaulted P.W. 2 on her head with the iron rod. P.W. 2 caught hold of accused No. 1, when he was assaulting P.W. 1, accused No. 1 called accused No. 2, and all the accused assaulted P.W. 1 with a chopper. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint to the police. 14. P.W. 3, Moninarasaiah, who is said to have been witnesses the incident did not support the case of the prosecution. In the evidence, he has stated that he has no knowledge about, the incident and he has not seen the accused abusing P.Ws. 1 and 2 and assaulted them with a. rod and chopper. 15. P.W. 6, Dr. Girija. the Medical Officer. Victoria Hospital, Bangalore has stated in her evidence that on 7.1.2003 at about 10.25 p.m., P.W. 6 examined P.W. 1 and found the following injuries: (i) cut wound measuring 1 x 3/4 (ii) cut injury on the right forearm on extensor side 1? x 5? bleeding was present. (iii) lacerated wound 6 x 0.5 over parietal region. P.W. 6 also stated that on the same day, she examined P.W. 2, Nagarathnamma, who was brought by the police constable. x 5? bleeding was present. (iii) lacerated wound 6 x 0.5 over parietal region. P.W. 6 also stated that on the same day, she examined P.W. 2, Nagarathnamma, who was brought by the police constable. She found only one injury, i.e., lacerated wound measuring 2 x 4/3 on the frontal region, P.W. 6 has stated that the injuries suffered by P.Ws. 1 and 2 are simple in nature. 16. P.W. 7, Harini Vanajakumari, the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk issued Ex. P10 stating that P.Ws. 1 and 2 belong to Adi Karnataka Caste and accused No. 2 belongs to Okkaliga Community. 17. P.W. 8. D. Ranganath, Police Inspector, who registered a cast on the basis of the information given by P.W. 1. On 8.1.2008. P.W. 1 gave written complaint as per Ex. P1. P.W. 8 registered the same as second FIR as the crime had already been registered as earlier complaint submitted by the complainant. In the second FIR Sections 323, 307 read with 34 and also Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). 1989 were included, P.W. 8 further stated that immediately after the incident, he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P2 mahazer, in the presence of panchas. He seized the blood stained clothes of the injured persons and on 9.1.2003, he arrested accused 1 and 2 and on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, he seized a chopper which was kept in his house in the presence of the panchas under a mahazar, Ex. P3. He also seized iron pipe on the basis of the confessional statement of accused No. 2 under mahazar, Ex. P16. 18. P.W. 10, Mohammad Khasim, the Head Constable, registered first FIR given by the complainant on 8.1.2003 at 1.30 a.m. 19. P.W. 11. Lavakumar, the then ACP, Kengeri Gate Sub Division, who had completed investigation and filed charge sheet has stated in his evidence that he visited the scene of occurrence, examined and recorded the statements. He deputed his staff to arrest the accused. He also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar to sent the Caste Certificate of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He sent the seized articles to the F.S.L for opinion. After receiving the wound certificate and the F.S.L report, he filed charge sheet against accused. 20. He deputed his staff to arrest the accused. He also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar to sent the Caste Certificate of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He sent the seized articles to the F.S.L for opinion. After receiving the wound certificate and the F.S.L report, he filed charge sheet against accused. 20. As seen from the FIR on the complaint lodged by P.W. 1, the Head Constable registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with 34 IPC. Subsequently, on. the same day, at 8.45 p.m., P.W. 1 lodged another complaint based on which, Section 307 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) were included in the FIR. 21. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the first FIR about the accused abusing P.W. 1 taking out the name of his caste and it was also not alleged that accused attempted to commit the murder of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Basing on the second complaint, Section 307 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 were included. It is not known as to why P.W. 1. did not choose to inform the police about the accused abusing them by taking out the name of their caste, which attracts the provisions of Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). In the evidence. P.W. 1 has stated that by the time he went to his house, he found accused 1 and 3 quarreling with his wife (P.W. 2). His evidence is silent about the accused attacking P.W. 2 and causing injuries to her. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that when accused 1 and 3 came to their house and picked up quarrel, P.W. 1 came there to rescue his wife, then the accused left her and attacked P.W. 1 with a chopper and iron rod. In the evidence. P.W. 1 has stated that accused assaulted him on both the knees with iron rod and attacked him with a chopper on his shoulder. But the medical officer P.W. 6 has stated that P.W. 1 suffered injuries on the fore arm, parietal region, shoulder and no injuries were found on the knees of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has not stated about the accused causing injuries to P.W. 2. The only eye witness, P.W. 3 did not support the prosecution case. But the medical officer P.W. 6 has stated that P.W. 1 suffered injuries on the fore arm, parietal region, shoulder and no injuries were found on the knees of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has not stated about the accused causing injuries to P.W. 2. The only eye witness, P.W. 3 did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, it is not safe to place any reliance on the uncorroborative testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, whose evidence is not consistent, and corroborative and is not convincing regarding the manner of attack by the accused. If really the accused assaulted P.Ws. 1 and 2 and abused them by taking out their caste, the complainant should have mentioned the same in the first, information itself. P.W. 1 has not given any acceptable reasons for giving the second F.I.R. making some more allegations against accused for the same incident which took place on 7.1.2008 at 8.30 p.m. “The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 does not inspire confidence and in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence and it is not safe to place any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are interested witnesses. 22. The trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence has rightly found the accused not guilty of offences for which they are charged. We are of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 23. The appeal is dismissed.