JUDGMENT 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 07.12.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in S.C.No.23/2002 by which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148,324, 326 and 304 Part II r/w. Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 143 IPC, two years for offence under Section 147 IPC, two years for offence under Section 148 IPC, two years for the offence under Section 326 IPC, two years for offence under Section 324 IPC and seven years for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. While accused Nos. 1 to 4 are convicted on the basis of the direct overt act attributed towards them and accused Nos.5 to 9 have been convicted and sentenced with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.10.2001 at 6.30 p.m., at Suranagi village in front of the house of complainant Puttappa Kollenni, accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the object of constructing wall of the hotel of accused No.2 Sangayya, therafter, holding lethal weapons they had caused injuries to persons namely Basavaraj Kollennai, Mahantesh Hiremath, Ishwarppa Haveri, Lankeppa Kollennai, Puttappa Kollenni and assaulted them with an intention to commit murder of Hanamanthappa Kollenni thereby, they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. It is further alleged against the appellants that on the above said place, date and time, being the members of unlawful assembly, they have caused grievous hurt to Lankeppa Kollenni, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 326 r/w. 149 IPC. It is further alleged that on the same date, place and time, the accused have caused simple hurt to Basavaraj, Mahantesh, Ishwarappa and Puttappa, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offences under Section 324 r/w. Section 149 IPC. It is further charged that on the above said date, place and time, being the members of unlawful assembly, the accused have abused the complainant and injured persons in filthy language in public place and insulted them and thereby, they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 504 IPC r/w. 149 IPC. It is further charged that on the above said date, place and time, being the members of unlawful assembly, the accused have abused the complainant and injured persons in filthy language in public place and insulted them and thereby, they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 504 IPC r/w. 149 IPC. It is further alleged that on the above said date, place and time, in furtherance of the common object they have committed the murder of Hhanamanthappa, thereby, they are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 302 r/w. 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case, has examined in all 19 witnesses and got marked Exs.PI to P19 and produced Mos. 1 to 14. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, it is their case that witnesses themselves had come to destroy the hotel run by accused No.2 and in the process, the incident took place and therefore, they are not responsible for the offence. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record held that the appellants are guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. The convicted accused have filed these appeals. 4. Heard Sri C.H. Jadhav, Sri Laxman Mantagani and Sri R.L. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Anand K. Navalgimath, Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that at the outset, the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the very genesis of the incident and that on a reading of the entire material on record, it is seen that the purpose of the witnesses was to completely destroy the tea shop, which was owned and run by accused No.2. It is further submitted that eyewitnesses have suppressed the grievous injuries suffered by the accused No.3. It is their case that the accused No.2 and his father Basavaraj had suffered the injuries in the incident and the prosecution is totally silent regarding the injuries caused on the accused itself which indicates that the prosecution has not come up with the clean hands and therefore submits that the majority of the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and even among them there is a gross inconsistency, so far as the very incident is concerned. He submits that the order of conviction suffers from illegality. He submits that the order of conviction suffers from illegality. It is further submitted by him that the accused No. 1 and accused Nos.5 to 9 are not at all concerned with the incident and it is only accused Nos.2 to 4 who are related to each other and therefore the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly applied Section 149 to rope in all the accused in the case. The prosecution has not established any link between the accused Nos.2 to 4 on the one hand and accused Nos.1 and 5 to 9 on the other. Therefore, he submits that accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 are entitled for an order of acquittal on this ground itself. It is further submitted by him that though it is not a case before the tiral Court, the accused are entitled to take the stand of self defence of property, since from the evidence on record it is seen that the tea shop of accused No.2 has been completely destroyed immediately after the Court Commissioner visited the scene of occurrence in pursuance of the order in O.S. No.89/2001 where the Civil Court has granted status-quo order in favour of the accused No.2. Hence he submits that, even if the entire incident is admitted as happened, the accused are entitled for a defence that they had acted to defend their property namely the tea shop. It is further submitted by him that so far as the individual overt acts are concerned, the prosecution evidence is not cleat and that the evidence tendered does not relate to the weapon and the injuries sustained by the injured persons. Under the circumstances he submits that the accused are entitled for an order of acquittal and prays that the appeal may be allowed. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the complaint narrates the individual overt acts and that the complainant has stated in the complaint regarding specific overt acts of accused Nos.2 and 3. He submits that accused No.1 has assaulted on the head of PW2 with Kuda-MO1 and accused No.2 assaulted on the PW3 and PW4. Accused No.2 has also assaulted Pw5. There are individual overt acts of accused Nos.3 and 4 in respect of death of the deceased. He submits that accused No.1 has assaulted on the head of PW2 with Kuda-MO1 and accused No.2 assaulted on the PW3 and PW4. Accused No.2 has also assaulted Pw5. There are individual overt acts of accused Nos.3 and 4 in respect of death of the deceased. He further submits that the explanation of the incident by PW1 to PW5 and Pw8, PW9 and PW11, so also PW13 clearly indicates that all the accused have acted with a common object of causing injuries on PW2 and other witnesses and therefore the order of conviction passed against all the accused is in accordance with law. It is further submitted by him that PW18 has clearly stated that a counter case in Crime No.81/2001 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of accused No.3 alleging the offences under Sections 323,324,307,504 read with Section 34 of IPC and the same is pending trial in S.C.No.35/2002. Hence, he submits that the prosecution has not suppressed the genesis of the incident as it is not borne out by the evidence on record and therefore, he submits that the order of conviction may be sustained by dismissing the appeal. 7. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of the complaint by PW1Puttappa. It is stated in the complaint that he is residing in the Suranagi village and carrying on the agricultural work. The accused No.2 is carrying on the tea shop in front of his house and he was planning to construct mud walls by replacing thatched walls. Since the said tea shop was in his land, he had prevented accused No.2 from putting the mud walls and therefore in this connection he had brought a status-quo order from the concerned Civil Court. It is further stated by him that on the date of incident four lawyers from the Civil Court who were appointed as court commissioners had come for the purpose of measurement of the land and at 5.30 p.m. they had measured the land and had gone back at about 6.00 p.m. Immediately thereafter, the accused No.2 along with other eight persons came near the tea shop and they had started abusing, PW1 and his brother and others were also present there and there was exchange of words in respect of the accused No.2 going to the Court and getting an order of status-quo. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused started assaulting the complainant and others and at that time the deceased Hanumantappa came there and accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted on the deceased while accused No.2 assaulted on PW1 and on other witnesses. It is alleged that all the accused have assaulted on the complainants party and as against accused No.5, 6 and 7 also there are allegations of assault in the complaint. Accused Nos.8 and 9 have also assaulted by hands on the brother of the complainant, the deceased was assaulted by means of iron kuda, PW4 was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 and 3. The deceased was taken to the hospital and on the next day the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The incident has happened at about 6.30 p.m. It is stated in the complaint that all the nine accused persons joined together and had assaulted the complainant’s brother and others. Based on the said complaint the Police have registered the case in Crime No.80/2001 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326,324, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed. 8. PW1 is the complainant. He has stated in the Court that the accused No.2 Sangayya Matapathi is carrying on a tea shop and that is situated in front of his house. The said shop is also by the side of the road which leads to Bellatti. The shop is covered with thatched tatties and the accused No.2 was planning to put the stone walls in the said tea shop. PW1 has approached the civil Court and has obtained a status-quo order and in this connection the Court has appointed a Commissioner and on the date of incident the Commissioner had come to the scene of occurrence and had measured the land and went back. Thereafter accused No.1 Vijaykumar abused his father regarding the construction of the walls to the teashop. The father of PW1 questioned as to why he is abusing, since the matter is in the Court. The accused No. 1 thereafter started retorting regarding the court order and thereafter brought an iron weapon (kuda) and assaulted on the head of PW1. PW1 went to intervene and at that time the accused No.2 assaulted him on his head and hands. The accused No. 1 thereafter started retorting regarding the court order and thereafter brought an iron weapon (kuda) and assaulted on the head of PW1. PW1 went to intervene and at that time the accused No.2 assaulted him on his head and hands. All other accused were present at the scene of occurrence. His brother Basavaraj came to support them and at that time all accused assaulted PW3 by means of hand and clubs. At that time his uncle Hanumathappa came near the scene of occurrence and at that time accused assaulted him by means of clubs. Thereafter PW4 Mahantesh came near the scene of occurrence and the 1st accused-Vijaykumar assaulted on PW4 by means of iron kuda on the head and on his ankle. PW5-Ishwarappa came nearby and he was also assaulted by means of hands and clubs. His father has sustained injuries on his head. The deceased Hanumantappa had sustained injuries on his head and face and he had fallen down and he could not get up. PW1 also sustained injuries on his head and waist. His brother-Basavaraj had sustained fracture on his head. Pw4-Mahantayya also sustained injuries on both his legs. At that time the village people by name PW10-Ramanna, PW7-Krishnappa, PW6Revanasiddayya and Virupakshappa came near the scene of occurrence and later on shifted them to the hospital. In the cross-examination it was specifically suggested to PW1 that accused Matapathi had sustained injuries, but PW1 has replied that he did not come to know that Matapathi had sustained injuries. However, in the further cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that accused No.3 had filed a complaint against them and the said complaint is pending trial before the same Court. It is suggested to PW2 that the incident has not happened as deposed by him in the evidence and that PW1 is suppressing the material facts. In the further cross-examination by the accused, it is further elicited that the teashop was existing prior to the incident and that after the incident the tea shop was not there. It is also stated by PW1 that he did not even think that the incident would take place in such a manner as alleged in the complaint. 9. PW2-Lankeppa Hanamanthappa Kollenni has also deposed in the same manner as that of PW1. In the cross-examination it is elicited that about 30-40 persons were assembled after lawyers left the scene of occurrence. 9. PW2-Lankeppa Hanamanthappa Kollenni has also deposed in the same manner as that of PW1. In the cross-examination it is elicited that about 30-40 persons were assembled after lawyers left the scene of occurrence. It is Further elicited that a quarrel took place in respect of the teashop and that both the sides have quarreled with each other. However, it is specifically elicited from the mouth of PW2 that accused have never sustained any injuries. It is further suggested on behalf of the accused No. 1 that there is no connection between the shop and the accused No. 1 and that accused No. 1 was studying in Dharwad on the date of incident. 10. PW3- Basavaraj Lenkappa Kollenni has also stated before the Court as per PWs 1 and 2 regarding the assault by the accused on the witnesses and the deceased. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to PW3 that immediately after the lawyers left the scene of occurrence, the witnesses have pulled down the teashop and assaulted the accused and others. However PW3 has denied the same suggestion. It is further elicited from PW3 that the teashop belongs to accused No.2 and that prior to the incident, there was no quarrel between the accused and the witnesses. 11. PW4 Mahantesh is another injured. PW5-Ishwarappa is yet another injured, who has spoken similar to the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. PW6 is a signatory to the panchanama Ex.P2. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW6 that the case was one in respect of demolition of teashop of accused No.2. PW7-Krishnappa is a witness for seizure of clothes of the injured as per Exs.P3 to P10. PW-Ismailsab is another witness, he has shortly narrated the incident. However, he has stated about the assault by accused No3-Lankeppa, so also the assault by the deceased. But he has not specifically stated any overt act in respect of the individual assailants. PW9-Gangadhar Fakkirayya Hiremath has also stated regarding the incident. However, he has not specifically stated about the individual overt acts of the accused. He also further stated that accused Nos. 3 and 4 have assaulted the deceased. PW9 has not identified the weapons said to have been used by the accused to assault the deceased or the witnesses. 12. PWs. 10 and 12 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW11 is also an eyewitness. He also further stated that accused Nos. 3 and 4 have assaulted the deceased. PW9 has not identified the weapons said to have been used by the accused to assault the deceased or the witnesses. 12. PWs. 10 and 12 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW11 is also an eyewitness. However, his account about the incident is general in nature without specific overt acts and the respective injuries and also the weapons with reference to the injuries. PW 13 has also given a general account of the assault without specifying the overt acts of any of the accused, so also PW14. However their evidence is of no consequence and since they have not specifically stated about the assault or the injuries. PW15- Dr.Jagadish N. has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and has issued the certificate-Ex.P9. According to him, death is due to the fracture of the skull bones of the deceased. PW16- Dr. Shashidhar is also a doctor who has examined PWs.1 to 5 and has issued would certificates as per Ex.P10 to 14. 13. PW17-Ranganagoudda is the ASI who has carried the dead body to the doctor and after conducting inquest proceedings handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. PW18 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 27.10.2001, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, he has registered a case in Crime No.80/2001 and commenced investigation. He has also further stated that he has visited the scene of occurrence, obtained the sample of unstained and stained mud from the scene of occurrence and on receipt of the intimation that deceased has succumbed to injured, added Section 302 IPC to the earlier FIR and later on handed over the investigation to the CPI. In the cross-examination he has admitted that on the same day he has come to know that accused has also sustained injuries and that a case in Crime No.81/2001 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of the accused who were injured. PW19 is the CPI who has continued the investigation, arrested the accused, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained the would certificate and ultimately filed the charge sheet in this case. 14. It is from the evidence of these witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and sentenced them as hereinbefore mentioned. PW19 is the CPI who has continued the investigation, arrested the accused, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained the would certificate and ultimately filed the charge sheet in this case. 14. It is from the evidence of these witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and sentenced them as hereinbefore mentioned. 15. On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, it is found that the incident has happened in respect of the shop owned by the accused No.2 and at the place where accused No.2 was running a teashop. The eyewitnesses and the injured in their statement before the police and in the Court have not stated that the accused have suffered injuries in the incident. It is only through PW18, the Investigating Officer, it is elicited that a counter case in Crime No.81/2001 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of accused No.3 and injured. Therefore, the complainant and witnesses have suppressed the very genesis of the incident and have not stated the truth before the Court. The fact that a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against the witnesses indicates that the witnesses have also come prepared for some altercations, which is also indicated from the averments in the complaint that both the parties started abusing each other. 16. In view of the suppression of injuries by the prosecution witnesses, suffered by the accused. I am of the opinion that the prosecution witnesses have not come up with clean hands. Therefore, relying on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Siddegowda and Others reported in ILR 1999 KAR 3373, I am of the opinion that the accused are entitled for an order of acquittal. It is further seen that narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses is discrepant and that none of the witnesses have clearly stated as to which of the injured has suffered with which of the weapons and which of the accused have assaulted on which part of the body of the injured clearly. Further, PWs13 and 14, though claimed to be eyewitnesses, have given a general account of the incident, which only indicates that none of the witnesses could give a clear and correct account of the incident. Further, PWs13 and 14, though claimed to be eyewitnesses, have given a general account of the incident, which only indicates that none of the witnesses could give a clear and correct account of the incident. It is elicited in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that at the time of incident 30-40 people were gathered at the scene of occurrence. The specific reason to implicate accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 9 who are not concerned at all with the incident has not been spoken to by any of the witnesses, except giving a omnibus account that all accused Nos. 1 to 9 were present at the scene of occurrence. This clarify indicates the tendency of the prosecution witnesses to implicate all the persons whomever they wanted. In view of this implication of accused Nos.1 and 5 to 9, it is clear that the witnesses do not speak the whole truth and have not came out with clear fruitful version of the incident. In a serious matter of this nature, it is not safe to rely on such shaky evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more so, when the incident has happened in the place where accused No.2 was carrying on tea business and that the said tea shop was existing even prior to the date, when PW2 was allotted a Janata site behind the tea shop. 17. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the reasoning assigned by the learned Session Judge in convicting the accused. I am of the considered opinion that the reasoning mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge and the appreciation carried out by the learned Session Judge is not based on the settled principles of law and therefore, the said judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction passed against the appellants is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquired of the offence leveled against them. The bail bonds executed by them is discharged. The fine amount, if deposited shall be refunded to them.