JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 assailing judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2011 passed by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bidar in Spl. C.C (SC/ST) No.14/2010 whereunder appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (Hereinafter called as 'the Act'). 2. The brief case as per the prosecution is that, on 07.05.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., the complainant- Anil, his father, uncle and brothers were returning from their land in a bullock cart. When they reached near the house of accused No.4-Mainuddin, a lorry was parked on the road, in which lorry, accused No.1 Moula was there. At that time, Madeppa, father of the complainant came and asked accused No.1 to park said lorry by the road side. By that time, accused No.1 abused the Madeppa in filthy language stating that he had parked the lorry in front of his house. In the meanwhile, appellants-accused Nos.2 to 4 came and started abusing the father of the complainant with filthy language besides abusing the complainant and his men by taking the name of caste knowing fully well that they belongs to schedule caste community with an intention to insult and humiliate them in public place. It is further case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 assaulted the father of the complainant by name Madeppa on his head with an axe, when complainant- Anil intervened to separate the scuffle. At that time, accused No.3-Ayyub Ali also assaulted on his stomach and gave fist blow. Accused No.2-Waheed kicked him, whereas accused No.4-Moinuddin kicked on the waist of Robbin, they have also assaulted Devendra on his back with hands, at that time, Shivakumara Swamy Bakkappa and Dastagir came and separated the scuffle. In the said incident, the father of the complainant sustained bleeding injuries. He was taken to Chitguppa hospital and there the police came and by recording the statement of the complainant, registered the case in Crime No.66/2010. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. In the said incident, the father of the complainant sustained bleeding injuries. He was taken to Chitguppa hospital and there the police came and by recording the statement of the complainant, registered the case in Crime No.66/2010. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked twelve documents as per Ex.P-1 to 12 and also got marked one material object as M.O.1. After closure of the evidence, the statement of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded by putting incriminating materials against the appellants- accused Nos.1 to 4. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and sentence of order came to be passed. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Hanmanthraya Sindol, appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. P.S. Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the State. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of eyewitnesses. He further contended that, the witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution are related with each other only on the interested testimony of such witnesses, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants-accused. He further contended that, the independent eyewitnesses have come to the place of incident after 15-20 minutes after the alleged galata, as such, their evidence is not believable and acceptable. He further contended that, the prosecution has alleged that the accused No.1 has assaulted the injured with axe with a sharp edged portion, but the injury certificate is not showing any such cut injuries. This fact falsifies the case of the prosecution. He further contended that, the complainant and other persons were belonging to Christian community, but in collusion with the officials they are claiming that they belongs to schedule caste and schedule tribes. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court. He further contended that, when the complainant and others were coming in the bullock cart, the said bullock cart dashed to the standing lorry, resulting in damage to its headlights, when the same was questioned by the accused persons, the complainant and others have assaulted the accused persons due to previous vendetta for having foisted a false. He further contended that, when the complainant and others were coming in the bullock cart, the said bullock cart dashed to the standing lorry, resulting in damage to its headlights, when the same was questioned by the accused persons, the complainant and others have assaulted the accused persons due to previous vendetta for having foisted a false. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by acquitting the accused persons. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader by supporting the impugned judgment has vehemently argued and contended that, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the injured eyewitnesses, who have categorically deposed the over tacts of each of the accused persons and their evidence is also supported by the evidence of the comoplainant-P.W.9 and the complaint Ex.P-7. He further contended that, the presence of the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 has not been disputed and when there is a corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to establish that the accused persons abused by taking the name of the caste of the complainant, and others and have caused simple and grievous injuries, by considering all these aspects, the trial Court has come to the right conclusion and has convicted the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4. He further contended that, the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 have not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of sentence, hence he prays to confirm the same by dismissing the appeal. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 and respondent-State, let me consider whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether this Court require to interfere with the order of the trial Court. 8. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution has got examined fourteen witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14. Of them, P.W.1 is the Tahasildar, Humnabad, he deposed that he issued Caste Report as per Ex.P-1. P.Ws.2 to 4 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. They have deposed that, they belong to Madiga community. About six months back, they had been to their land in a bullock cart and while returning from the land at about 7:00 p.m., they were proceeding in front of house of appellants, a lorry was parked on the road by accused-Moula. They have deposed that, they belong to Madiga community. About six months back, they had been to their land in a bullock cart and while returning from the land at about 7:00 p.m., they were proceeding in front of house of appellants, a lorry was parked on the road by accused-Moula. P.W.2 had requested to park the said by the side of road and at that time, appellants abused him in filthy language besides abusing by taking the name of the caste of the complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1-Moula assaulted P.W.2 with axe on the head. They have further deposed that, when son-Anil came asking the accused why they assaulting his father, at that time, accused No.3-Ayyub assaulted Anil with hand on his stomach. They have further deposed that, accused No.2-Waheed Ali kicked his son Anil, accused No.4-Moinuddin also kicked on the waist of his son-Robin and he also assaulted his brother-Devindra on his back with hands. They have further deposed that, at that time, Shivakumar Swamy, Mohammad Ali, Dastagir, Bakkappa, Saloman, they separated, thereafter, they went to Chitguppa hospital and there the police came and recorded the statement of the complainant. During the course of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited so as to discard their evidence. Though it is suggested to P.W.2 that bullock cart dashed the lorry of the accused and damaged the head light and when they asked, at that time, P.W.2 assaulted the accused persons, the said suggestion has been denied. 9. P.W.5 and 6 are the spot mahazar panchas to Ex.P-2, they have not supported the case of prosecution and they were treated as hostile. 10. P.W.7 is being an eyewitness has not supported the case of prosecution. 11. P.W.8 is the doctor who examined the injured-Madeppa. Rubin and Devendra. He has deposed that Madeppa has sustained lacerated wound over the right parietal region and tenderness on right forehead and lower abdomen and also on fore arm of posterior aspect. He has further deposed that Rubin has sustained tenderness over right wrist and right elbow of posterior aspect. He has further deposed that, Devendra has sustained tenderness over the upper and lower abdomen and he has issued Exs.P-4 to 6. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited. P.W.9 is the complainant who has also sustained the injuries. He has also reiterated the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. 12. He has further deposed that, Devendra has sustained tenderness over the upper and lower abdomen and he has issued Exs.P-4 to 6. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited. P.W.9 is the complainant who has also sustained the injuries. He has also reiterated the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. 12. P.W.10 is the seizure mahazar pancha of the axe at the instance of the accused No.1 from his house as per Ex.P-8. The suggestion made to this witness has been denied. 13. P.W.11 is an eyewitness, who came to the spot and witnessed the alleged incident. He has also reiterated the evidence of P.W.9 complainant. He has further deposed that himself, Dastagir and Bakkappa separated the accused. During the course of cross- examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. 14. P.W.12 is the Head Constable, who registered the case and issued the FIR. P.W.13 is the P.S.I., who apprehended the accused and produced before the Investigating Officer. P.W.14 is the Dy.S.P, who investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 15. I have examined carefully and cautiously the evidence led by the prosecution. P.W.s. 2 to 4 are the injured eyewitnesses. P.W.9 is an injured complainant. In order to substantiate the fact that, they belongs to Madiga community, prosecution has got examined P.W.1 and he has issued Ex.P-1. Ex.P-1 issued by P.W.1, Tahasildar indicates that the complainant belongs to Madiga community and it is an admitted fact that the accused persons belong to Muslim community. When a person belonging to other community abuses a person belonging to the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe community in public with an intention to humiliate to the person who is belonging to that community, under such circumstances, the provisions of the Act will be attracted and the said person is liable for conviction. As could be seen from the evidence of P.Ws. As could be seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 and 9, who are considered to be the material witnesses, they have categorically deposed before the trial Court that when they were coming back from the land in bullock cart and when they were near the house of accused No.1, the complainant asked accused No.1 to park the lorry by the side of the road at that time accused No.1 scolded, thereafter accused Nos.2 to 4 also came their and abused the complainant and others by taking their name of the caste. In order to discard this evidence, during the course of cross- examination of these witnesses, nothing has been elicited. Even these witnesses have categorically deposed that, accused No.1 abused and thereafter, remaining accused also abused, thereafter accused No.1 assaulted P.W.2 with an axe on his head and when Anil came and asked why they are assaulting his father, accused No.3 assaulted the said Anil with his hand on his stomach and accused No.2 kicked the said Anil, accused No.4 also kicked on the waist of Rubin and accused No.4 also assaulted his brother-Devendra on his back and other parts. This evidence of injured eyewitness is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.11 who is also an eyewitness, who was present and pacified the quarrel. For having sustained the injuries due to the assault by the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.8, doctor, who treated the injured witnesses and has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P-4 to 6. In that light, there is consistency and corroboration in the evidence of prosecution to prove that, the accused persons have abused the complainant and others by taking the name of the caste and they have also assaulted the complainant and other witnesses. Though these witnesses have been cross- examined in length but there is nothing to discard and disbelieve their evidence. 16. Though the learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 by drawing the attention of this Court, argued that, there are some inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution, but the said inconsistencies are minor and they are not going to take away the case of the prosecution and they will not shake the case of the prosecution. 16. Though the learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 4 by drawing the attention of this Court, argued that, there are some inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution, but the said inconsistencies are minor and they are not going to take away the case of the prosecution and they will not shake the case of the prosecution. It is also argued that, because of the bullock cart causing damage to the headlight of the lorry, the alleged incident has taken place and the complainant and others have assaulted the accused, the said suggestion has been denied and there is no complaint by the appellants, if such incident has really taken place. In the absence of any material the said contention cannot be acceptable. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that, there are some defects while conducting the investigation. But, it is well established principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, if there is any flaws or defects in the investigation, if it is not material and not going to the root of the case so as to discard the case of the prosecution, under such circumstances the said defect must be ignored and the entire case of the prosecution has to be weighed and if there is clear, cogent and corroborative evidence so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution the same has to be believed and the accused has to be convicted. On perusal of the records, there is consistency and the evidence led is cogent and corroborative. In this respect, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that, the complainant and others are belonging to Christian community as such the provisions of the Act are not attracted. Though, during the course of cross-examination an attempt has been made, but nothing is brought on record either in the cross-examination or by producing any material to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any material, the said contention is also not acceptable. The learned counsel also submitted that, if a person is assaulted with sharp edge of the axe in that event there will be cut injuries, but as per the evidence of P.W.8 and the documents at Exs.P-4 to 6, it reveals that P.W.2 has sustained the blunt injuries. The learned counsel also submitted that, if a person is assaulted with sharp edge of the axe in that event there will be cut injuries, but as per the evidence of P.W.8 and the documents at Exs.P-4 to 6, it reveals that P.W.2 has sustained the blunt injuries. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, they have not deposed that they have been assaulted with sharp edge of the axe. They have only deposed that the accused No.1-Moula assaulted with axe. If the hit is from the back side of the axe, under such circumstances, there will be blunt injuries. Even, the doctor who has been examined as P.W.8, deposed that the said injury is caused by blunt object. 19. Be that as it may. When P.W.8 was came to be examined before the Court as an Expert, it has not been elicited anything so as to substantiate the contention taken up by them in this appeal. In the absence of any material, it cannot be considered and held that it is going to help the accused in any manner. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused in the case of Niranjan Prasad and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1996 SC 3010 is not applicable to the case on hand. In this behalf also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused is not acceptable. 20. On going through the evidence, which has been produced before the trial Court, it reveals that the said evidence is trustworthy, corroborative and reliable and there are no doubt in the case of the prosecution so as to give any benefit of doubt to the appellants-accused. I have perused the judgment of the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has come to a right conclusion in accordance with law, there is no perversity or illegality in the order so as to interfere with the said order. The same is liable to be confirmed. Hence, I pass the following; ORDER Appeal is dismissed.