JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.6.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.IV, Mysore, in so far as acquitting the respondents-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 341 and 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 4.9.2010 around 7.30 p.m., the respondents-accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly znear a Banyan tree in front of the bus stand of Hadanuru village, H.D. Kote Taluk, with an intention to kill P.W.2 Shivananju, S/o Nanjundaswamy committed rioting by The motive alleged was some old enmity between C.W.2 and the respondents accused. Accused Nos.5 and 7 said to have abused C.W.2 in filthy language. Accused Nos.6 and 7 caught hold of him. Accused No.8 instigated to assault him with chopper. Accused No.1 assaulted on the left side of the neck of C.W.2 with chopper and also on the backside of the neck causing bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 assaulted with chopper on the left side forehead of holding deadly weapons and wrongly restrained P.W.2 with the further object of committing murder. The accused assaulted P.W.2 and caused bleeding injuries. C.W.2 and also on the back. Accused No.3 assaulted with the chopper on the right portion of stomach of C.W.2 and backside of the neck and also on his back causing bleeding injuries. Thereafter, accused Nos.4 and 5 took away all the weapons from accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.4 assaulted with rear part of chopper on the left side arm of C.W.2, accused No.5 assaulted on the right knee of C.W.2 with rear part of the chopper. Due to the assault, C.W.2 fell down and accused Nos.6 to 8 kicked him and further threatened him that they will not leave him. At that time, C.Ws.8 to 10 intervened and pacified the galata. Likewise, C.Ws.12, 14 and 15 who were also present there, witnessed the incident. Later C.W.2 was taken to the hospital at H.D. Kote, thereafter, shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. P.W.1, uncle of the injured lodged the complaint with Saragur police. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.180/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Later C.W.2 was taken to the hospital at H.D. Kote, thereafter, shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. P.W.1, uncle of the injured lodged the complaint with Saragur police. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.180/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 114, 323 and 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After hearing both sides, learned Fast Track Judge framed charges against the accused for the said offences and when the charges were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, matter was posted for trial. The prosecution in support of its case, in all, examined 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and also 4 material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and their statements came to be recorded. On the side of the defence no witnesses were examined nor were any documents marked. After hearing the arguments of both sides and also after considering the materials on record, both oral and documentary, the learned Fast Track Court Judge, convicted respondents accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 143 and 148 r/w Section 149 of IPC and further convicted respondent No.1accused No.1 for the offence under Section 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the State is before this Court in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned Fast Track Court Judge, on the grounds as mentioned in ground Nos.1 to 11 of the appeal memorandum. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State and also the learned Amicus Curiae representing respondent Nos.1 to 8. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader (‘HCGP’ for short)has submitted that there is evidence of injured witness supported by the medical evidence i.e., injury certificate Ex.P10 and also Doctor’s oral evidence, so also, the oral evidence of other witnesses who are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader (‘HCGP’ for short)has submitted that there is evidence of injured witness supported by the medical evidence i.e., injury certificate Ex.P10 and also Doctor’s oral evidence, so also, the oral evidence of other witnesses who are the eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution has proved the charge even for the offence under Section 307 and 341 (wrongful restraint) of IPC, in spite of that, the learned Fast Track Judge, though accepted the prosecution material as against accused No.1 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, but wrongly held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the offence under Section 307 of IPC against all the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 8. Learned HCGP drew our attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the documents produced in the case and submitted that the oral evidence of injured P.W.2 gains support from other prosecution witnesses who have deposed before the Court that they have seen all the accused coming nearby the Aralikatte and restraining P.W.2, the injured. It is the evidence of P.W.7 that he was also present along with injured P.W.2. He told the accused persons that panchayath could be held in the matter on the next day and requested them not to do anything to the injured and in spite of such request by P.W.7, accused persons assaulted the injured with the deadly weapons and thereby caused the injuries. She has submitted that there are injuries on the vital parts of the body. Accused were armed with deadly weapons, which clearly shows that they were having the intention to commit the murder of P.W.2. The prosecution has placed sufficient material against all the respondents accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Hence, the judgment and order passed acquitting the accused persons for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is also submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Fast Track Court Judge are not in accordance with the materials placed on record. There is no correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case. Accordingly, she has submitted to allow the appeal and to convict the respondents accused for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 5. There is no correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case. Accordingly, she has submitted to allow the appeal and to convict the respondents accused for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 5. Percontra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents accused, so far as the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, drew our attention to the evidence of injured himself and submitted that there is no worth believable evidence adduced by P.W.2 to come to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence even under Section 307 of IPC. She also drew our attention to the wound certificate at Ex.P10 and also the evidence of Doctor – P.W.14 and submitted that the injuries caused are simple in nature. In so far as the weapons used for the commission of the offence, there is again no consistency in the case of the prosecution. Though it is alleged by the prosecution that all the accused persons were holding deadly weapons and assaulted the injured P.W.2 with the same, but during the course of trial before the Fast Track Court only three weapons have been seized and as per the FSL report, blood stains were found only on two weapons. She has also submitted that there is no consistency in the oral evidence of panch witness, the contents of the spot mahazar Ex.P2, so also, evidence of complainant P.W.1 and injured P.W.2. In this connection, she also drew our attention to paragraph Nos.28, 29, 30 and 33 of the judgment of the learned Fast Track Court Judge, which reads as follows: “28. Ex.P.11 is the wound certificate issued by K.R. hospital of which speaks that there was soft tissue injury and conservative treatment was given, no fracture is seen. It also speaks that he was brought with an history of assault at Hadanuru village bus stand. 29. Ex.P.12 is the opinion given by PW.14 doctor that if one gives blow on left side, right and back side of the neck with chopper forcibly, it would likely to cause death. Some of the injuries were on the vital part of PW.2. 30. 29. Ex.P.12 is the opinion given by PW.14 doctor that if one gives blow on left side, right and back side of the neck with chopper forcibly, it would likely to cause death. Some of the injuries were on the vital part of PW.2. 30. PW.1, complainant Gurubuddi has stated that accused No.1, 2, 5, 6, 4, 3, 7 and accused No.8 were armed with deadly weapons like choppers and they were assailing PW.2, PW.7 Chikkanna and CW.9 Koosanna pacified the galata, they had thrown the chopper there itself and ran away from the spot. PW.2 was lying on the road in bloodshed. 33. The common object could be seen from overact of the accused persons. Unless it is proved that particular accused is directly involved in the commission of particular offence, the inference cannot be drawn that he has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. or any other offence punishable under Section 323 or 324 of IPC as alleged by the prosecution. Merely because accused No.1 to 8 were present on spot the presumption cannot be drawn that this particular accused had assaulted as alleged by the prosecution”. and submitted that the trial Court has discussed about these aspects in detail and explained in the said paragraphs how the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not attracted in the case on hand. She has submitted that the observations made by the learned Fast Track Court Judge in the said paragraphs are based on the material placed by the prosecution, which is correct and in accordance with the materials placed on record. She has submitted that there is no worth believable material to show that the accused persons have committed even the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Hence, there are no grounds for this Court to interfere into the judgment and order of the learned Fast Track Court Judge. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is to be dismissed. 6. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order passed by the learned Fast Track Judge, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced, so also, considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides at the bar. 7. The injured is one Shivananju and he has been examined as P.W.2 in this case. 7. The injured is one Shivananju and he has been examined as P.W.2 in this case. His uncle has lodged the complaint and he has been examined as P.W.1. Let us refer to the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 Gurubuddi, the complainant has deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that on 4.9.2010 while returning back home after attending the work in the field, at about 7.00 p.m., he saw some persons in a group near the banyan tree of their village. They are Mahadevaswamy, Gudda, Naaga, Mahesha, Muniya, Shiva and another Mahadevaswamy and Mahadeva. They were holding macchu in their hands and were assaulting C.W.2 Shivananju. Chikkanna and Koosanna who were present there were pacifying the quarrel. Thereafter, all the accused persons after throwing the weapons (macchu) at the said place started running away from the said place. C.W.2 Shivananju having sustained bleeding injuries was lying on the ground. They secured ambulance and took the injured C.W.2 to the H.D.Kote Government Hospital, wherein the Doctor has advised to take the injured to the hospital at Mysore. He lodged the complaint before the police as per Ex.P1. On the next day of the incident, police came to the spot. He himself has shown the spot to the police. At that time, C.W.4 Kemparaju was also present along with him. Police have seized three weapons (macchu) from the spot and also seized blood stained mud and have drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a). The three weapons (macchu) together were marked as M.O.1, blood stained mud was marked as M.O.2. In the cross-examination he deposed that when he was returning from his land, nearby the lake, some persons were talking that the niece of the complainant has been murdered. When P.W.1 was asked that at the place of incident other persons were not at all present, he answered that the witnesses were present but they were watching the incident by standing at a distance. He also deposed that Chikkanna and Koosanna and elders of the village were also present. He deposed that Mahadevaswamy S/o. Kempasiddaiah, Gudda and Daasi @ Naaga were holding Macchu. He also deposed that Chikkanna and Koosanna and elders of the village were also present. He deposed that Mahadevaswamy S/o. Kempasiddaiah, Gudda and Daasi @ Naaga were holding Macchu. When he was specifically asked as to, out of three weapons seized (macchu), who was holding which weapon, he pointed out one machu and told that it was held by accused No.1 Mahadevaswamy and accordingly, it was marked as M.O.1(a), he pointed another one and said that accused No.5 Naaga was holding the same, which was marked as M.O.1(b) and pointed third one, as held by accused No.2 Gudda and it was marked as M.O.1(c). The witness also deposed that even other accused persons were holding macchu, but they threw the same at the said place and ran away. He has mentioned that in the complaint he has stated which macchu was held by which particular accused and when he was writing the contents of the complaint, Kemparaju and Doddasiddu were also present and at that time, C.W.2 was not in a position to speak and was lying on the ground two ft. away from the tar road. When spot mahazar was conducted it is seen that the weapons (macchu) were thrown nearby the fence. When he was asked that in the gram panchayath elections the accused persons had supported Siddaraju, he answered that even complainant had supported Siddaraju and admitted the suggestion as true that Paapanna C.W.11 was defeated in the said election. But, denied the suggestion that because of that reason, there was faction in the village. 8. The evidence of P.W.2, who is injured in this case, is that about one year back after attending coolie work in the land, he was coming back nearby the banyan tree. Chikkanna (P.W.7) was with him at that time. Mahadevaswamy, the son of Kempasiddaiah, came running holding machchu. Thereafter, his brother Gudda came. Then Dasi @ Naga, Mahesha came from left side. Mahadevaswamy @ Guddacame from right side. At that time, Chikkanna (P.W.7) told them not to make any galata and next day, they can have the panchayath and resolve the problems. Then P.W.7 seen him and asked him to go to house and he was coming to the house running. At that time, there was one more Banyan tree. Mahadevaswamy @ Guddacame from right side. At that time, Chikkanna (P.W.7) told them not to make any galata and next day, they can have the panchayath and resolve the problems. Then P.W.7 seen him and asked him to go to house and he was coming to the house running. At that time, there was one more Banyan tree. When he was at that said place, accused No.3Shiva, accused No.1Mahadeva and accused No.4 Muniya came running holding machchu in their hands and they attacked him and there was house at the said place and because of fear, he went inside the housie which belongs to one Chenna. Because of that reason and out of fear, the women folk and the children of that house, came out of the house. PW2 further deposed that all the eight accused persons came inside the house. At that time, accused No.1Mahadevaswamy assaulted PW2 on the left side of the neck. Accused No.2Gudda also assaulted him at the same place and accused No.8Mahadeva also assaulted him. Then he came outside and fell there. Thinking that he is already dead, Gudda and Mahadevaswamy left him there itself and threw him. P.W.2 further deposed that they assaulted nearby his waist portion. He lost his consciousness. In this connection, he has given statement before the police. He has stated before the police in his statement as to from which direction the accused persons came. Even he had stated that which of the accused assaulted on which portion of the body and with what weapon. Though it was suggested to this witness that while transporting the wooden log in the tractor and because of the fall of the said wooden log, he sustained injuries. The said suggestion has been denied by the witness. Even he has denied the suggestion that he has teased the wife of accused No.1 and because of that reason, a false case has been booked. Though the prosecution claims that Chikkanna (P.W.7) is also one of the eye witnesses, looking to the examination in chief itself, we are of the opinion that P.W.7 came to the place after the incident was over. It is the contention of the prosecution that though it has produced material even for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but the same was not been considered properly by the Fast Track Court Judge. It is the contention of the prosecution that though it has produced material even for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but the same was not been considered properly by the Fast Track Court Judge. So far as the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC, the charge is not against all the accused persons. It is only against the accused Nos.1 to 3. In charge No.5, it is mentioned that accused No.1 assaulted with chopper on the left side and on the back portion of the neck of C.W.2. Accused No.2 assaulted with the chopper on the left portion of the forehead and back of C.W.2. Accused No.3 assaulted with chopper on the right portion of C.W.2 and caused bleeding injuries with intention and knowledge that under circumstances if by the said act of the accused caused the death of C.W.2, they would have been convicted for murder and thereby, they have been committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. 9. So far as the charge is concerned, let us examine the materials placed on record for the commission of the said offence. It is mentioned in the first charge, in the beginning, that on 04.09.2010 at 7.30 p.m. beneath the banyan tree beside public bus stand road, the offences said to have committed. In the beginning of charge No.5, it is mentioned that the offence was committed on the above said date, time and place. Therefore, as per the charge, the place of incident is beneath the banyan tree. Perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about which we have already made the reference, looking to the contents of complaint (Ex.P.1), the assault on P.W.2 is nearby banyan tree. Even according to the spot mahazar (Ex.P.2), the same place nearby the banyan tree on the public road, it is stated for the commission of the said offence. But looking to the oral evidence of P.W.2, the injured himself has stated that assault on him by the accused was not at the place nearby the banyan tree, but when Chikkanna (P.W.7) asked him to go to the house and when he was coming nearby another banyan tree, the accused attacked him and hence, because of fear, he entered into the house of one Channa and all the accused persons went inside the house and assaulted him with machchu. If the evidence of P.W.2 is taken into consideration, the place of assault on him is inside the house of one Channa and not at the place nearby the banyan tree. In this connection, if we peruse the evidence of investigating officer, it goes to show that he has not recorded the statement of the owner of the house Channa or any other family members of Channa. Looking to the evidence of P.W.2, regarding the place of incident, it is against the contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2. There is no reference of these two documents that assault made by the accused is inside the house of one Channa. Apart from that, even with regard to the assault with machchu is concerned, if the oral evidence of P.W.2the injured is perused, he himself has stated that three persons were said to have assaulted him with machchu nearby the neck and other parts of the body. But the evidence of P.W.1 in the examination in chief, it is stated that all the accused persons assaulted P.W.2 with machchu and they threw the said machchu at the said place and ran away. Even with regard to the seizure of machchu (M.O.1) is concerned, the choppers, which were three in number, are said to have marked under M.O.1 and also there are sub-marking M.Os.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). 10. We have perused FSL report (Ex.P.15). Out of the three machchus said to have been sent to FSL, it is reported by the FSL authorities that only two machchus are blood stained and on the last machchu, there are no blood stains. In the serology report (EX.P.16), it is mentioned that the blood stains are of human blood and the grouping of the blood stains is concerned, it is reported that as they were disintegrated, the authorities are not capable to ascertain the blood grouping on the said machchus. 11. We have also made reference to the evidence of Chikkanna (P.W.7), who claims to be the eye witness to the incident. His evidence goes to show that at the time, he came to the said place, the incident was over. P.W.2 already sustained the injuries. Therefore, he cannot be treated as eye witness to the incident. 12. 11. We have also made reference to the evidence of Chikkanna (P.W.7), who claims to be the eye witness to the incident. His evidence goes to show that at the time, he came to the said place, the incident was over. P.W.2 already sustained the injuries. Therefore, he cannot be treated as eye witness to the incident. 12. Looking to these materials and the very basis regarding the place of incident is concerned, there is no charge framed saying that P.W.2 has been assaulted by all the accused persons in the house of one Channa. But it is stated in the complaint and in the evidence of P.W.1, that all the accused persons assaulted P.W.2 with machchu and threw the same and ran away from the said place. Even a single machchu has not been seized from the place of offence. But, in fact, the materials would show that Chikkanna (P.W.7) brought and produced three machchus before the police at the time of conducting the spot mahazar. The evidence of the investigating officer further goes to show that Chikkanna (P.W.7) gave machchu to the complainant, who in turn produced the said machchu before the police. 13. Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses produced in the case, there is totally inconsistency in between their evidence and the contents of the documents, more particularly complaint (Ex.P.1) and spot mahazar (Ex.P.2). The learned Fast Track Court Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter at paragraph No.1 about which learned Amicus Curiae drew our attention. We have perused paragraph Nos.28 to 35 of the said judgment which pertain to the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC. The learned Fast Track Court Judge has made reference to each and every material both oral and documentary and discussed it extensively and he has also referred to the nature of the injuries alleged to have been caused on P.W.2 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that no material has been placed by the prosecution which is worth believable and acceptable for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Fast Track Court Judge came to the conclusion that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, he has committed the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Fast Track Court Judge came to the conclusion that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, he has committed the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Regarding the other accused persons, the learned Fast Track Court Judge is of the opinion that the prosecution has not placed material against accused NOs.2 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 14. Considering all these materials, we are of the opinion that so far as the offence under Section 307 of IPC about which the appellant State has preferred this appeal, no consistent material has been produced. Therefore, the learned Fast Track Court Judge has rightly come to the conclusion in acquitting the accused so far as the alleged offence under sections 307, 323, 341, 114 read with section 149 of IPC. There are no valid and justifiable grounds to interfere with the said judgment and order of acquittal. No merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. We place on record, the valuable assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, Advocate. Registry is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/-to the learned Amicus Curiae Smt. Saritha Kulkarni as honorarium.