JUDGMENT P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. 1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned Advocates, the appeal is heard for final disposal. State has preferred an appeal against an order of acquittal dated 20-2-2013, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya, in S.C. No. 15 of 2010, acquitting the accused 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 341, 307and 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accused 5 for the offence punishable under Section 114 read with Section 307 of IPC. 2. We have heard Sri B.T. Venkatesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records produced by him and Sri N.S. Anil Kumar, Amicus Curiae for the respondents. 3. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that accused 1 to 8, at about 8.30 p.m. on 12-6-2009 wrongfully restrained the complainant and he was assaulted by accused 2 to 7 by iron rods, accused 3 by a stone, accused 4 by a club, while accused 1 held the complainant and accused 6 and 8 threw chilli powder and the accused 5 was instigating the other accused to kill the complainant. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, placed 10 exhibits and 6 material objects before the Trial Court. The accused have produced 2 documents-Exs. D. 1 and D. 2 in their defence. 5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses in the proper perspective and therefore, the order of acquittal is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. Per contra, Sri N.S. Anil Kumar, the Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On perusal of the material on record, the question that falls for our consideration is as to whether or not, the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to attempt on the life of P.W. 2 and whether the charges levelled against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The main witness in this case is the injured witness-P.W. 2. The main witness in this case is the injured witness-P.W. 2. P.W. 1 is a Senior Doctor and an orthopedic surgeon in Nagamangala General Hospital. P.Ws. 3 to 5 are supposed to be the eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 4 and 6 are attesting witnesses to the spot mahazar-Ex. P. 3. P.W. 7 is a panch witness to the mahazar which is recorded on 15-8-2010 after a lapse of more than two months from the date of the incident. P.W. 8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who has done investigation in part. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge-sheet. P.W. 10 is another Doctor in Nagamangala General Hospital. The complainant-P.W. 2 was treated in the Nagamangala General Hospital as an in-patient from 12-6-2009 to 24-6-2009. Ex. P. 1-the Doctor's Certificate reveals that the injured had sustained following injuries: "(a) A linear cut wound measuring 8 cm. in depth over the right parietal area of scalp; (b) A linear cut wound of size 2 cm. skin depth over the right frontal area of scalp; and (c) Linear cut wound of 1 cm. skin deep over the lateral margin of the right orbit." According to the Doctor, in his deposition and the Wound Certificate-Ex. P. 1 issued by him, the above injuries are simple in nature. His evidence has not been controverted. It is the case of complainant-P.W. 2 that the accused 1 held him and accused 2 and 7 assaulted him with an iron rod; accused 3 caused injury by a stone; accused 4 assaulted by a club; accused 5 instigated other members of the assembly and accused 6 and 8 threw chilli powder. P.Ws. 3 to 5 have sought to support the case of P.W. 2-complainant. There are serious discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 3 and others. P.W. 3 has deposed that accused 5, 6 and 8 threw the chilli powder. P.Ws. 3 and 4 state that it was P.W. 6 who was with them when they rushed to the spot and not P.W. 5. However, P.W. 5 has deposed that he along with P.Ws. 3 and 4 rushed to the spot to protect the complainant-P.W. 2. Thus, there is serious discrepancy in the versions of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. The versions of P.Ws. However, P.W. 5 has deposed that he along with P.Ws. 3 and 4 rushed to the spot to protect the complainant-P.W. 2. Thus, there is serious discrepancy in the versions of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. The versions of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 touch upon the genesis of the case and in view of their version, the genesis of the case is shrouded with some mystery. 7. The case of the defence brought out in the cross-examination of injured witness-P.W. 2 is that the father of accused 1 and 2 had purchased six guntas of land in Survey No. 173 in the year 1991 from the father of P.W. 2-Kullegowda; in turn, Kullegowda had purchased 6 guntas of land from father of accused 1 and 2 in Survey No. 705; P.Ws. 3 and 4 were in judicial custody at that relevant point of time having been accused in the murder of Kullegowda who was not a party to the sale deed executed by the father of P.W. 2. In this connection, there was a dispute inter se between the parties and frequent quarrels used to ensue. P.W. 2 has admitted that he and his family members had assaulted Javaregowda (father of accused 1 and 2) on the very same day i.e. 12-6-2009 at about 1 p.m. and a case in Crime No. 15 of 2009 had been registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of IPC. A copy of the charge-sheet has also been brought on record through P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of Police and the same is marked as Ex. D. 1. The defence has also suggested P.W. 2-the injured witness that P.W. 2 and his family members had assaulted accused 5. Though he has denied the suggestion, he has admitted that at the instance of accused 5, a case had been registered against him in Case No. 64 of 2009 (for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,323, 324 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC) which also has been brought on record by P.W. 8-Sub Inspector and marked as Ex. D. 2. It is significant to note that in the Ex. P. 10-MLC Register, while describing the history of the injuries, it is mentioned as having occurred due to injuries caused by unknown persons. Ex. P. 9 is the intimation sent by the hospital to the police station. D. 2. It is significant to note that in the Ex. P. 10-MLC Register, while describing the history of the injuries, it is mentioned as having occurred due to injuries caused by unknown persons. Ex. P. 9 is the intimation sent by the hospital to the police station. Even this document does not disclose the name of the assailants. The natural conduct of any injured is to disclose the names of the assailants in the history of injuries while taken to a hospital for treatment. In this case, surprisingly, the important document such as MLC register and intimation to the police do not disclose as to how P.W. 2 sustained injuries. Thus, this also creates serious doubt with regard to genesis of the case sought to be made out by the prosecution. P.W. 2 is none other than brother of P.W. 5. He has deposed in his evidence that his brother (P.W. 2) had lost consciousness after having been injured by the assailants. Again surprisingly, even this aspect has not been recorded in the MLC Register. Adverting to delay in recording the statement of P.W. 2, it is significant to note that according to P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, the Doctor had opined that P.W. 2 was not in a position to give any statement. The best witness to support this theory is the Doctor-P.W 1. However, the Doctor has not stated anything in his witness to support the theory of the prosecution that P.W. 2 was not in a position to give the statement. Thus, the case of prosecution which hinges around the injuries sustained by P.W. 2 and its narration by P.W. 2 himself in the form of a statement suffers from serious legal infirmities. The prosecution has displayed a very callous and unprofessional way of conducting trial in this case. We are dismayed to note that after commencement of trial, the prosecution has filed additional documents viz., Ex. P. 4-Photographs of the injured and Ex. P. 5-a petition of P.W. 2 said to have been submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Mandya, along with his bloodstained cloths. We are dismayed to note that after commencement of trial, the prosecution has filed additional documents viz., Ex. P. 4-Photographs of the injured and Ex. P. 5-a petition of P.W. 2 said to have been submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Mandya, along with his bloodstained cloths. The prosecution has made a feeble and unsuccessful attempt to bring the bloodstained cloth on record by introducing another amusing theory that the police who recorded the statement of P.W. 2 had apparently asked him to keep the bloodstained cloths with him without giving it to anybody and to produce in future. It is not only surprising but shocking that the prosecution ventured to bring an important material such as bloodstained cloth of an injured on record without a proper seizure. This practice is alien to criminal trial. P.W. 5 is brother of P.W. 2-the complainant. He makes particular reference to the bloodstained cloths M.Os. 5 and 6 which were sought to be brought before the Court as material evidence after a lapse of more than one year which is opposed to all canons of criminal law. On this aspect, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the theory of the prosecution by holding that it is incomprehensible that P.W. 2 would have kept a bloodstained cloth for over an year and further that no evidence was brought before the Court to show that the stains on the cloths M.Os. 5 and 6 is that human blood and that it matches with the blood group of P.W. 2 in particular. Insofar as the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 4 (two iron rods, a club and a stone) is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish with cogent evidence to support the theory of the prosecution inasmuch as the evidence of Police Inspector-P.W. 8 suggests that he seized the said M.Os. at the spot and on the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 6 an attesting witness is that the said items were still lying at the spot. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is a public road and the seizure is on the third day of incident. Hence, it is highly improbable that P.W. 8 could have seized the said items from the place of occurrence. The Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 4. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is a public road and the seizure is on the third day of incident. Hence, it is highly improbable that P.W. 8 could have seized the said items from the place of occurrence. The Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 4. The aforementioned facts as sought to be placed before the Court by the prosecution when critically examined with the evidence on record, do not inspire the confidence of the Court to hold that the prosecution has proved its case and much less beyond reasonable doubt. Particularly, the misadventure made by the prosecution in attempting to bring M.Os. 5 and 6 on record after the trial had begun is a sufficient circumstance to hold that the prosecution has acted very casually and miserably failed in the case. Even on reappreciation of the evidence, we hold that no exception can be taken to the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Further, this is an appeal against acquittal and we concur with the view taken by the Trial Court and therefore the appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed. We place on record the valuable services rendered by Sri Anil Kumar N.S., learned Amicus Curiae. In token thereof, we direct the Registry to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as honorarium to the learned Amicus Curiae.