JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the state challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed in Spl.C.C. No. 34/2009 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, wherein the respondents No. A-1 to A-13, who were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 were acquitted of the said offences. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State as well as learned counsel for the accused/respondents. 3. The facts leading to this case is that on 24.08.2009, at about 7.30 pm, the complainant namely Narayana Swamy examined as PW-1 lodged the First Information Report before the Vemagal police station, Kolar against Accused Nos. 1 to 13 which was registered in Crime No. 181/2009 of the said police station and investigation was taken up and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., all the accused in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly armed with clubs and came near the land where the complainant and others were doing agricultural work and questioned them as to why they are doing the said work in the land as the said land belongs to them and by abusing them in a filthy language insulting their caste and threatening that their houses will be burnt etc., assaulted P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.Ws. 5 to 8 and 11 and caused simple injuries to them. Hence, committed the offences charged against them. 5. The accused denied the charges and claimed not guilty and accordingly the prosecution proceeded to examine the witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Before the trial court, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and from their evidence, Ex. P1 to Ex. P19 and MOs. 1 to 6 were marked. The defence has not examined any witnesses on their behalf and have denied the incident as alleged by the prosecution. 6. The learned trial Judge on an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced has ultimately come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The defence has not examined any witnesses on their behalf and have denied the incident as alleged by the prosecution. 6. The learned trial Judge on an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced has ultimately come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 7. It is the contention of the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the State that the incident occurred on 24.08.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., and according to the wound certificates at Exs. P-12 to P-18, the injured namely P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 to 8 and 11 were examined by the doctor on the very same day and they were treated for the simple injuries sustained by them and in this regard, wound certificate at Exs. P12 to P18 have been marked through the Investigating Officer - P.W. 12. As per the wound certificates, which have been relied upon, he submits that all these witnesses have sustained those injuries and the said witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is his further submission that in support of the complaint lodged by P.W. 1, he has corroborated the averments made in the complaint by way of his evidence and P.Ws. 2, 5 to 8 and 11 have all supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is his submission that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and he submits that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Sri. A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents submits that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused on account of the land dispute between the parties and there is a decree in favour of the accused in respect of the very same land. He further submits that there is a case and counter case and even the accused parties have also sustained injuries in the said incident. He further submits that though the prosecution witnesses have given evidence against the accused persons, but there are inconsistencies in the said evidence which go to the root of the prosecution case and their evidence is full of embellishments which are not free from doubt and the incident has not occurred as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that though the prosecution witnesses have given evidence against the accused persons, but there are inconsistencies in the said evidence which go to the root of the prosecution case and their evidence is full of embellishments which are not free from doubt and the incident has not occurred as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal as this is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 9. Having heard both sides, the points that arise for consideration are; (1) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? (2) Whether the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court calls for any interference? (3) What Order? 10. Since point Nos. 1 and 2 are interlinked with each other; the same are answered as under: 11. P.W. 1-Narayanaswamy lodged the First Information before the Vengal Police on 24.08.2009 at about 7.30 p.m. alleging that he and others were assaulted by the accused persons on account of a land dispute. The said incident has taken place at around 10.30 a.m. According to the F.I.R., all the accused i.e., A1 to 13 having formed an unlawful assembly armed with clubs-M.Os. 1 to 6, came near the land where the complainant and others were doing agricultural activity and the accused persons abused and threatened them and also assaulted with the said clubs. On account of which, some of the witnesses sustained injuries. As per the F.I.R., P.W. 1 has stated that accused No. 1 assaulted with the club on the back of the head of his brother, P.W. 2. Accused No. 9 assaulted his brother on his left hand. Accused No. 5 assaulted on the right hand of his brother and others assaulted his brother with the hands and when P.W. 5-wife of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6-sister of P.W. 1 came to intervene, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 assaulted him with the hands. His wife i.e., P.W. 5 was assaulted by accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, 11 and 13, who dragged her by holding the tuft. P.W. 6 was assaulted by accused No. 4 with the club and caused injury to the right hand and forefinger. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that when P.Ws. 7, 8 and 11 came and intervened, at that time, accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, 11 and 13, who dragged her by holding the tuft. P.W. 6 was assaulted by accused No. 4 with the club and caused injury to the right hand and forefinger. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that when P.Ws. 7, 8 and 11 came and intervened, at that time, accused Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted P.W. 7 with the club and caused injuries to the right shoulder, left side of the waist and left hand. P.Ws. 8 and 11 were also assaulted by the accused with the hands. P.W. 3-Hanumappa and P.W. 9-Manjunatha came and pacified them and thereafter all the injured were admitted to SNR Hospital, Kolar for treatment. 12. On a careful perusal of the above first information report, it can be said that the complainant has named all the accused persons having assaulted the injured and also named some of the witnesses who were present at the spot. According to the FIR., the accused have assaulted and caused injuries to P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 to 8 and 11. With regard to the counter attack and the injuries sustained by the accused persons, there is no whisper in the F.I.R. Looking into the evidence of P.W. 1-complainant, he has deposed therein that on 24.08.2009 between 9.00 - 10.00 a.m., they were doing agricultural work in Sy. No. 166. At that time, all the accused persons, who are before the Court came armed with clubs, abused and threatened them and thereafter assaulted them with the said clubs. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are said to have assaulted P.W. 2 and caused injuries on the head. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 are said to have assaulted P.W. 1 with club. Then the accused have dragged P.Ws. 6 and 7. P.W. 1 has further deposed that the said incident took place for about 10 minutes and the accused have also assaulted his uncle-Venkateshappa and sister-Kanthamma i.e., P.Ws. 8 and 6 respectively, who came and tried to pacify the quarrel. He has deposed that immediately after the assault made on him, he fell unconscious and all the injured were treated at SNR Hospital, Kolar. M.Os. 1 to 6 have been identified by P.W. 1. His complaint has been marked as Ex. P1 and Ex. P1(a) is the signature. 13. He has deposed that immediately after the assault made on him, he fell unconscious and all the injured were treated at SNR Hospital, Kolar. M.Os. 1 to 6 have been identified by P.W. 1. His complaint has been marked as Ex. P1 and Ex. P1(a) is the signature. 13. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it has been elicited that there was a civil dispute in respect of Sy. No. 166 and he has admitted that the said civil dispute has ended in favour of the accused persons. He has further stated that he cannot identify as to which accused was holding M.Os. 1 to 6. However, he has denied the suggestion that the accused have not assaulted or abused and threatened them. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that even the accused have lodged a complaint with regard to the assault made by them and in this regard a case was registered prior to the registration of the case lodged on their complaint and charge-sheet was filed against them which was subsequently numbered as S.C. No. 149/2009 before the Sessions Court, Kolar. 14. Learned counsel for the accused/respondents submitted that in S.C. No. 149/2009 there were 9 accused persons, wherein they were tried for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w. Section 149 IPC and by Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2010 i.e., on the same day of passing of the Judgment in the present case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons. Against the said Judgment and Order of acquittal, no appeal has been preferred by the State. A copy of the said Judgment and Order is made available by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. 15. P.W. 2 is none other than the brother of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 is the cousin of P.W. 1 and he is also a panch-witness to the spot-mahazar-Ex. P2. P.W. 4 is an independent witness. P.W. 5 is the wife of P.W. 1. P.W. 6 is the sister of P.W. 1. P.W. 7 is the wife of P.W. 3. P.W. 8 is the father of P.W. 1. P.W. 9 is the villager, known to the injured witnesses. P.W. 10 is another panch to the spot mahazar-Ex. P2, from where M.Os. 1 to 6 were seized. P.W. 11 is the wife of P.W. 8 and she is the mother of P.Ws. P.W. 7 is the wife of P.W. 3. P.W. 8 is the father of P.W. 1. P.W. 9 is the villager, known to the injured witnesses. P.W. 10 is another panch to the spot mahazar-Ex. P2, from where M.Os. 1 to 6 were seized. P.W. 11 is the wife of P.W. 8 and she is the mother of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6. 16. P.W. 12 is the Investigating Officer, who took over the investigation on 24.08.2009 from P.W. 13 and recorded the statements of the injured witnesses etc. and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. P.W. 13 is the P.S.I., who after receiving the telephonic message from the hospital, sent his staff to record the statement of the injured and accordingly after receiving the said statement from P.W. 1, he registered the case in CR. No. 181/2009 and dispatched the F.I.R.-Ex. P19 to the Court. 17. On perusal of the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions. P.W. 2 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 with the clubs and he sustained injury on his head and C.W.2 i.e., P.W. 5 sustained injury to the shoulder. P.W. 2 has further deposed that his sister-Kanthamma's (P.W. 6) finger was cut and his brother sustained injuries on his neck and he fell unconscious. He has further deposed that this incident went on for about 5 minutes. He has deposed that the material objects in front of the Court are not the object. In the cross-examination, P.W. 2 also admitted regarding the civil dispute between the parties. Though he has denied regarding filing of the counter case, he has again admitted that the said case is pending before the same Court. 18. P.W. 3 claims to be an eye-witness. According to him, the accused came and threatened the complainant and others and picked up a quarrel when they were cultivating the land in Sy. No. 166. He has stated that the accused have assaulted with the club on P.Ws. 1 and 2 and accused No. 3-Chowdappa and Ramachandrappa assaulted his wife Nagarathnamma-P.W. 7 with clubs. It is relevant to note that accused Chowdappa is accused No. 3 and there is no accused by name Ramachandrappa. P.W. 3 is also an attester to spot mahazar-Ex. P2. He has stated that the accused have assaulted with the club on P.Ws. 1 and 2 and accused No. 3-Chowdappa and Ramachandrappa assaulted his wife Nagarathnamma-P.W. 7 with clubs. It is relevant to note that accused Chowdappa is accused No. 3 and there is no accused by name Ramachandrappa. P.W. 3 is also an attester to spot mahazar-Ex. P2. This P.W. 3 even claims that the accused assaulted him on his right elbow. This is silent in the First Information Report. Even otherwise there is no mention of P.W. 3 being treated by the doctor and there is no wound certificate produced with regard to the injury sustained by him. According to P.W. 5, her husband i.e., P.W. 1 was assaulted by Vankatappa and venkatesh. It is not clear from her evidence as to who are the said two persons. In the cross-examination, she has stated that her husband P.W. 1, Ramachandrappa-P.W. 2 and also Hanumappa-P.W. 3 fell unconscious and her husband gained conscious only in the evening at 6.00 p.m. She admitted that there is a civil dispute between the parties and that a case was also registered against them. 19. P.W. 6 has deposed that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were assaulted. She (P.W. 6) was assaulted by P.W. 4 on her right index finger. P.W. 2 was assaulted on his head and body. P.W. 5 was assaulted on her body. The accused have abused their caste and also threatened with dire consequences. Later, P.W. 3 and P.W. 9 pacified the quarrel. In the cross-examination, she has stated that all the witnesses are related. She became unconscious and gained conscious at 9.00 p.m. Police have not recorded her statement. She has also admitted regarding the civil dispute between the parties. 20. P.W. 7 has deposed that accused Nos. 4 and 1 pulled the saree of P.W. 5. Accused No. 2 caused injury to her (P.W. 7) on her right thumb. Accused No. 1-Earappa and Chandrappa assaulted Narayanaswamy (P.W. 1) with a club all over his body. The quarrel was pacified by her husband Hanumappa (P.W. 3) and P.W. 9 etc. There is no accused by name Chandrappa. Further, P.W. 7 has stated that accused Nos. 1 and 4 pulled the saree of P.W. 5 etc. Strangely, the same is not stated by P.W. 5 herself in her evidence. 21. The quarrel was pacified by her husband Hanumappa (P.W. 3) and P.W. 9 etc. There is no accused by name Chandrappa. Further, P.W. 7 has stated that accused Nos. 1 and 4 pulled the saree of P.W. 5 etc. Strangely, the same is not stated by P.W. 5 herself in her evidence. 21. P.W. 8 has deposed in his evidence that at about 9.00 a.m., the accused persons came near the spot where they were doing agricultural work and abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences stating that their houses will be burnt and all the accused together assaulted with the club. On account of which he fell unconscious. He has not seen the other accused persons having assaulted others, since he fell unconscious. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that he cannot say which club was in the hands of which accused. He has further stated in the cross-examination that there may be a case with regard to the assault made by them against the complainant party. 22. P.Ws. 9 and 11 have generally stated that all the accused have assaulted and caused injuries to P.Ws. 1 to 5. They have not named any of the accused and not identified them. 23. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, I find that there are severe discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the assault made by each of the accused. Though the F.I.R. contains names of all the 13 accused persons, the complainant in his evidence has not spoken anyone other than accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Different version is given by P.W. 1 with regard to the assault made by the accused persons mentioning the names of all stating that accused have assaulted and he further goes to the extent of saying that the finger of his sister Kanthamma got cut and he has even stated that the material objects which are before the Court are not the subject matter of the case. 24. 24. As discussed above, all these witnesses are not consistent with regard to the assault made by each of the accused and stated nothing about the counter case and the assault made by them on the accused, wherein it has come in the evidence that there is a counter case and in this regard a separate trial was held in sessions case in S.C. No. 149/2009. The complaint lodged against the complainants' party herein is first in point of time and even certain accused herein appears to have sustained injuries. The case filed against the complainants party has also ended in acquittal. It is no-doubt that wound certificates were marked as per Exs. P12 to 18 with regard to the injured witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1, 5, 6, 2, 7, 11 and 8 respectively. However, the doctor who has issued the said wound certificate has not been examined. Perusal of the wound certificates goes to show that the witnesses have sustained minor injuries. The trial Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence and after appreciation of the evidence of the injured witnesses was of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even after re-appreciation of the said evidence and materials on record, I find no reason to interfere with the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 25. Since this being an appeal against an order of acquittal and there being no reliable and consistent evidence which is forthcoming so as to reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, I answer the points No. 1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.