JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2010 passed in S.C. No. 36/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore convicting appellant/accused no. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC wherein this accused was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of six months. Hence, this appeal is filed by accused no. 2 challenging the impugned judgment by urging various grounds. 2. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under: Accused 1 to 3 and the deceased Basavarajau are the relatives. CW-5 Puttasiddamma is the mother of the deceased Basavaraju. She had lent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the accused persons. On 3.2.2008, she sent her son Basavaraju to the house of the accused for bringing back the said amount. Accordingly, he went to the house of accused persons and demanded return of Rs. 2000/- lent by his mother. There was some exchange of words between the accused persons and the deceased Basavaraju. They assaulted Basavaraju in furtherance of common intention. The incident took place at 7.30 p.m. in the front of the house of the accused persons at Chowkahalli village, K.R. Nagara Taluk. Accused No. 1 by holding the shirt collar of Basavaraju pushed him and assaulted him with hands on his forehead. Accused No. 2 twisted the right hand of Basvaraju and made him to fall down and accused No. 3 kicked on his thigh. Subsequently, the said Basavaraju was admitted to General Hospital at K.R. Nagara on 04.02.2008. Since there was swelling in the left lower limb, he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore on 09.02.2008 for further treatment and thereafter to JSS hospital, Mysore on 12.2.2008. The leg of Bsavaraju was completely necrotized due to the infliction. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on 7.4.2008 at 4.30 p.m. The death memo was sent by JSS hospital to K.R. Nagara police. Prior to that, there was intimation given by the general hospital, K.R. Nagara to K.R. Nagara police station. The leg of Bsavaraju was completely necrotized due to the infliction. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on 7.4.2008 at 4.30 p.m. The death memo was sent by JSS hospital to K.R. Nagara police. Prior to that, there was intimation given by the general hospital, K.R. Nagara to K.R. Nagara police station. One Puttaraju, the head constable in K.R. Nagara police station recorded the statement of Basavaraju on 12.02.2008 who was taking treatment in JSS hospital and registered the case for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequent to the death memo issued by the JSS hospital, Mysore and on the basis of complaint given by Narasimha, a relative of deceased Basvaraju on 7.4.2008, the second FIR was registered by converting the case for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Based on the complaint, the PSI of K.R. Nagara police station recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted the inquest mahazar. Thereafter CW-37, the Circle Inspector of Police after investigation laid charge-sheet before the concerned court. Subsequently, the committal court after taking cognizance of the offences, committed the case against accused no. 2 and 3, since accused no. 1 was absconding. The Sessions court on receipt of the case, framed charges against accused no. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, in respect of which the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. 4. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 27 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P1 to P22 and closed its side. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded where accused had denied the truth of the prosecution adduced and he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. However, Ex.D.1 was marked on the defence side. 5. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the court below convicted accused no. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Heard Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. Vishwamurthy, learned HCGP for the State and perused the entire records. 7. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Heard Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. Vishwamurthy, learned HCGP for the State and perused the entire records. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his arguments has taken me through the evidence of witnesses that the prosecution had relied upon. He contends that the court below has failed to consider that PW-10, Puttasiddamma, mother of the deceased Basavaraju was not an eye witness to the incident and in her cross-examination she admits that at the time of the alleged incident, PW-8 Vasantha wife of the deceased was in the house and she is also not an eye witness. Hence, the court below erred in relying on the evidence of PW-8 and PW-10 by holding that they are material witnesses. 8. Further, he contends that the court below failed to consider that PW-11 and PW-13 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have denied that they have witnessed the infliction given by accused no. 2 and 3 to Basavaraju. Further he contends that there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint and also submitting FIR before the court. The complaint was registered on 12.2.2008 whereas the incident had occurred on 3.2.2008. Proper explanation has not been given for the said delay which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9. Further he disputes the contents of Ex.P.19, the statement of deceased Basavaraju said to be recorded by PW-20, Puttaraju the Head Constable wherein the deceased was under treatment at JSS Hospital. The court below failed to consider that the alleged eyewitnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The alleged statement of the deceased Basavaraju said to have been recorded by PW-20, Puttaraju is a fabricated document and it was not recorded by the competent person by a procedure known to law and it cannot be relied on. 10. Further learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the accused have assaulted the deceased. The finding given by the court below that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no. 10. Further learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the accused have assaulted the deceased. The finding given by the court below that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no. 2 and 3 have assaulted the deceased is not based on any acceptable evidence on record and the evidence is based on surmises and conjectures. According to prosecution, the deceased suffered fracture of radius of both the hands but whereas it is not possible to believe that the alleged assault made by the accused resulted in fracture and the court below failed to consider that aspect. 11. Further, it is contended that the court below failed to consider that PW-2 the Doctor who treated the deceased admits in his cross-examination that in the case-sheet Ex.P5, he has not mentioned the age of the injury found on the deceased. Having not considered the said observation by PW-2 by the court below is fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the alleged assault by the accused. Further, he contends that in the OPD slip issued by the K.R. Nagara Hospital, only fracture of wrist of both the hands was seen but in the subsequent medical records of K.R. Hospital, Mysore and JSS Hospital, Mysore, it was mentioned that the deceased was injured on the face which the Trial Court ought not to have believed. Further, the Trial court committed serious error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC where at the best the conviction could have been under Section 323 of IPC. 12. On all these grounds urged, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for revisiting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence by re-appreciating the entire evidence in a proper perspective, since the Trial court has committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 36/2009 be set aside by allowing this appeal. 13. Per contra, learned Government Pleader Shri S. Vishwamurthy, has taken me through the contents of Ex.P.19 said to be given by the deceased Basavaraju and recorded by Head Constable Puttaraju while the injured was in the hospital. 13. Per contra, learned Government Pleader Shri S. Vishwamurthy, has taken me through the contents of Ex.P.19 said to be given by the deceased Basavaraju and recorded by Head Constable Puttaraju while the injured was in the hospital. Subsequent to the death of Basavaraju, second FIR was recorded. His statements may be termed as dying declaration. The accused has caused injuries over the person of the deceased which is reflected in Ex.P.1, wound certificate, Ex.P2 and P5 the case-sheets and so also Ex.P8, post mortem report. This accused has assaulted with hands and caused fracture of lower end of right wrist and he made the deceased Basavaraju fall and committed the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC only with an intention of voluntarily causing hurt to Basavaraju. On this ground, he supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held by the Trial Court. He contends that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused, which is clear from the evidence itself. The evidence of mother and wife of the deceased Basavaraju coupled with the evidence of PW-11 and PW-13 proves the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the court below on appreciation of the entire evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused and seeks for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused as being devoid of merits. 14. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to notice that on 3.2.2008 at 7.30 p.m. PW-10 Puttasiddamma mother of the deceased Basavaraju sent him to the house of the accused persons to demand return of Rs. 2000/- paid by her to them. When deceased Basavaraju went there, accused no. 1 who is absconding by holding his shirt collar held him and assaulted him with hands on his head and thereafter, accused No. 2/appellant twisted the right hand of Basavaraju and made him fall down and thereafter accused No. 3, the father of accused No. 1 and 2 kicked him on his thigh. As a result of the infliction given by accused No. 1 to 3 caused the death of Basavaraju, who took treatment nearly for a period of two months, but succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 15. As a result of the infliction given by accused No. 1 to 3 caused the death of Basavaraju, who took treatment nearly for a period of two months, but succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-8 Vasantha, wife of deceased Basvaraju, PW-9 Nanjunda, CW-4 Ramesha, PW-10 Puttasiddamma, PW-11 Nagaraju, PW-13 Ramesha, CW-13 Swamy, PW-24 Boraiah, PW-17 Amase, PW-18 Arakere Madiah, PW-6 Sannamma Mother-in-law of Basavaraju and CW-19 Puttaraju are the important witnesses who have deposed about the infliction given by the accused persons. PW-8, PW-11, PW-13, PW-16, PW-17 and PW-18 are the eye witnesses. Whereas PW-11, PW-13, PW-17 and PW-18 have not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. PW-11 and PW-13 have deposed in their evidence regarding the quarrel between the accused persons and Basavaraju. PW-11 Nagaraju has stated that when he was sleeping at 8/8.30 p.m. in his house, accused persons and Basavaraju were quarreling, then he went there and advised them not to quarrel. PW-13 Ramesha has also deposed that when he was at his home, the accused persons and Basavaraju were quarreling, he also advised them not to quarrel. They have further deposed that later they came to know about the death of Basavaraju. 17. PW-10 Puttasiddamma mother of Basavaraju has deposed in her evidence that she sent his son to the house of accused persons to demand return of the amount of Rs. 2000/- which was due to be paid by them is an undisputed fact. 18. PW-8 Vasantha, wife of the deceased Basavaraju has stated in her evidence that Basavaraju went to the house of the accused persons to demand the due amount. PW-6 Sannamma the mother-in-law of Basavaraju has stated that he went to the house of the accused persons, later he succumbed to the injuries because of the blows given by the accused persons. The Trial Court has held that PW-8, PW-10 being the wife and mother of deceased Basavaraju are the material witnesses who were living along with Basavaraju and they know that Basavaraju went to the house of the accused persons to demand the loan amount paid by his mother, but there is no concrete evidence placed by the prosecution to prove that the accused are cause for the death of the deceased. 19. 19. The Trial court has also relied on the documentary testimony which speaks the circumstances under which Basavaraju was brought to the General hospital at K.R. Nagara on 4.2.2008. The case-sheet issued by the General Hospital, K.R. Nagara is at Ex.P5 which reveals that he was brought to the hospital with an history of assault. The last page annexed to Ex.P.5 also speaks the details of the history entered in the MLC register. But the court below failed to notice that there is a delay in registering the case and also submitting FIR to the court for which no proper explanation was given to believe the case of the prosecution. Even the court below committed an error that there was no evidence of any witnesses who have seen the blows given by accused Nos. 2 and 3 to Basavaraju and caused injuries to him to come to the conclusion that they have committed the alleged offences and there is also nexus between the alleged inflictions given by them and also the death of Basavaraju. 20. PW-16 Narasimha who lodged complaint on 7.4.2008 as per Ex.P16 regarding the death of Basavaraju, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He denied the version of prosecution that Basavaraju died because of injuries sustained by him in the incident and the accused have assaulted Basavaraju. The Trial Court held that accused and Basavaraju were not strangers but were relatives, and that PW-16 has stated in the chief-examination that earlier his younger sister was given in marriage to Basavaraju but after the death of his sister, Basvaraju got married PW-8 Vasantha, and he was not present at the spot when the incident took place and on the advice of police he lodged a complaint. PW-16 has given a complete goby to the version of his statement at Ex.P16 complaint and also the statement said to given by him during the course of the investigation. He did not withstood with the complaint given by him. 21. PW-2 Dr. Thimmaraju has deposed in his evidence that he found simple injuries and one grievous injury i.e. fracture of right wrist as per the Xray, on 8.2.2008 fever and vomiting started to the injured and on 9.2.2008, he diagnosed there was necrotizing fascitis. He did not withstood with the complaint given by him. 21. PW-2 Dr. Thimmaraju has deposed in his evidence that he found simple injuries and one grievous injury i.e. fracture of right wrist as per the Xray, on 8.2.2008 fever and vomiting started to the injured and on 9.2.2008, he diagnosed there was necrotizing fascitis. In the chief-examination he has stated that such problem could arise due to the blows given with hands or when kicked by legs and by a stick. But he has clearly stated that necrotizing fascitis could be caused from assault with stick and kick and admittedly, no weapons were used by the accused persons. 22. PW-3 Dr. Manjunatha conducted the post mortem. Ex.P8 is the post mortem report. He has stated that the death was due to necrotizing fascitis, lungs and the liver were also inflicted. Cause of necrotizing fascitis is to be ascertained by the doctor who has seen the patient first when the injuries were fresh. He also noticed that the body of the deceased Basavaraju is poorly built and nourished. He has opined that the doctor who had seen the injured for the first time is the proper person to give his opinion regarding the fresh injuries sustained by the injured. 23. PW-1 Dr. Hemalatha is the Doctor who had given treatment to Basavaraju in JSS hospital. She has stated in her evidence that when skin colour turns to black colour, it is the symptom of gangrene. 24. The court below failed to notice that the quarrel took place on 3.2.2008 at 7.30 p.m. in Chowkahalli village and Basavaraju sustained injuries, and no eye witness has supported the case of prosecution regarding the infliction given by accused No. 2 and 3 to Basavaraju, when the injured was brought to the General hospital, K.R. Nagara and that he was assaulted by the accused persons. It is pertinent to note that the statement given by the injured when he was under treatment in JSS hospital is not considered in a proper perspective. PW-20, Puttaraju the Head constable in K.R. Nagara police station has deposed that he recorded statement of Basavaraju on 12.2.2008 in JSS hospital as per Ex.P.19 and thereafter the case was registered under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. PW-20, Puttaraju the Head constable in K.R. Nagara police station has deposed that he recorded statement of Basavaraju on 12.2.2008 in JSS hospital as per Ex.P.19 and thereafter the case was registered under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Ex.P.19 discloses that Basavaraju was in a condition to speak about the incident and accordingly he has disclosed the fact before PW-20, Puttaraju and in the presence of PW-1 Dr. Hemalatha. The court below erred in taking note of the fact that in the cross-examination of PW-20, he has admitted that there was no separate document intimating the doctor that he would be going to record the statement of Basavaraju. This aspect of the matter is not taken into consideration by the court below. PW-20 has admitted that as the health of Basavaraju was deteriorating, he was shifted from General hospital, K.R. Nagara to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and thereafter to JSS hospital, Mysore. The statement bears the LTM of Basavaraju and Ex.P.20 is the copy of the FIR submitted to the court. The statement was given by Basavaraju before PW-20 on 12.2.2008 whereas he died on 7.4.2008. According to the alleged statement of Basavaraju, he was assaulted by accused No. 2 and 3 along with accused No. 1 and accused no. 2 had twisted his right hand and made him fall down and thereafter accused no. 3 kicked on his left thigh. But whereas in the case-sheet it has been noticed that Basavaraju had sustained three injuries. The Trial court failed to notice that though the deceased Basavaraju complained about the pain on right and left wrist and found external injuries on his left of the forehead, on 8.2.2008 he was attacked by fever and also vomiting. On 9.2.2008 even there was swelling and also found the parts were necrotizing. 25. The court below failed to notice that when deceased Basavaraju did not complain of pain in the thigh or in the buttock part, when he was admitted to hospital and the parts were necrotizing which was not due to the alleged infliction given by the accused persons, for which reason it was not noted in the case-sheet at the first day itself. It is relevant to note that the whether the parts at buttock as well as the lower left limb were necrotizing due to the blows given by the accused persons or due to some other reasons. The case-sheet at Ex.P.5 issued by the general Hospital, K.R. Nagar, Ex.P15 case-sheet issued by K.R. Hospital, Mysore and the medical records issued by the JSS hospital depicts that the death was caused due to necrotizing the parts and also there was infection to lungs and stomach. According to Ex.P.15 deceased Basavaraj was a chain smoker and alcoholic since 8 years. But the Trial court having held that, it is difficult to say that necrotizing started due to infliction given by the accused persons and that death occurred due to the blows given on left thigh and due to fall in the scuffle, could not have convicted the accused. 26. The court below observed that the prosecution has proved its case to the extent that there was a quarrel between the accused persons and Basavaraju and accused no. 2 had caused the fracture of lower end of right hand and due to the assault by accused no. 2 he fell down on the ground and accused no. 3 kicked him. The court below having held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the death of Basvaraj occurred due to kick by accused and having held that there is no sufficient evidence to show the nexus between the death of Basavaraju and the assault by the accused No. 2 and 3 and also that the eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding infliction given by the accused, has erroneously passed the order of conviction, convicting the accused. 27. The charge for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC was framed against accused no. 2 and 3. When Basavaraju demanded the accused persons for return of Rs. 2000/- which was due to his mother, there was quarrel between them and accused no. 2 and 3 assaulted Basavaraju. 27. The charge for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC was framed against accused no. 2 and 3. When Basavaraju demanded the accused persons for return of Rs. 2000/- which was due to his mother, there was quarrel between them and accused no. 2 and 3 assaulted Basavaraju. According to the prosecution witnesses they have stated in chief-examination that since the accused persons and Basavaraju were the relatives, they advised them to compromise the matter and even deceased Basavaraju had given the same statement before the Head constable PW-20 and he wanted to compromise the case with accused persons, who are none other than his relatives, as such he did not give any complaint to the police at the first instance. Having observed this aspect of the matter, the court below erred in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no. 2 and 3 assaulted Basavaraju and due to the injuries sustained by him in the quarrel, he succumbed to those injuries. 28. It is pertinent to note that spot panchanama as per Ex.P.13 is dated 13.2.2008 and the statement of Basavaraju was recorded on 12.2.2008. As per the intimation given by the general hospital under Ex.P.3 it was given on 4.2.2008. There was no material to show that why case was not registered on the same day. Only on the basis of the statement by way of complaint given by deceased Basavaraju, the case was registered on 12.2.2008 and the spot mahazar was recorded on 13.2.2008. Even the evidence of PW-8 Vasantha suffers from contradictions and infirmities as at that time she had delivered a baby and it was 15 days old. PW-10 Puttasiddamma, the mother of the deceased Basavaraju has also stated in her evidence that PW-8 was not in the spot. Having noted all these material contradictions, the court below erred in convicting the accused. 29. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Basavaraju went to house of the accused and demanded for return of Rs. 2000/- due to be paid to his mother and there was a quarrel between them, then he was assaulted by the accused. The court below observed that because of a sudden quarrel between themselves there was meeting of minds to cause bodily injuries. But there was no intention of causing bodily injury. 2000/- due to be paid to his mother and there was a quarrel between them, then he was assaulted by the accused. The court below observed that because of a sudden quarrel between themselves there was meeting of minds to cause bodily injuries. But there was no intention of causing bodily injury. Accordingly, the court below held that there was no evidence to connect accused no. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC and it does not fall within the purview of Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC but wrongly concluded that accused No. 2 and 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. 30. In this appeal it requires re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, as wherein the Trial court has misdirected and misread the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-16 said to be brother-in-law of deceased has stated in the chief-examination that earlier his younger sister was given in marriage to Basavaraju but after the death of his sister, Basavaraju got married PW-8 Vasantha, and he was not present at the spot when the incident took place and on the advice of police he lodged a complaint. PW-16 has given a complete goby to the version of his statement at Ex.P16, complaint and also the statement said to given by him during the course of the investigation. He did not withstood with the complaint given by him. There is no direct overt act attributed to this accused as they have caused the death of Basavaraju. This accused was apprehended by the police during the course of investigation and was in judicial custody since 27.3.2008 to 11.02.2009 and has served sentence for eleven months. Without adverting to this part of the evidence which is available on record in the case, and despite lack of essential ingredients to constitute the above offences, the court below had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused and thereby has convicted the accused. 31. Without adverting to this part of the evidence which is available on record in the case, and despite lack of essential ingredients to constitute the above offences, the court below had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused and thereby has convicted the accused. 31. However, in the totality of the circumstances of the case and having gone through the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not placed cogent and corroborative evidence to probabalise that this accused has caused the death of deceased Basavaraju. This accused has served substantial sentence for a period of eleven months when he was in judicial custody between 27.3.2008 to 11.02.2009 for the offences alleged against him. 32. In the instant appeal, it is divulged as accused are caused to the injuries of deceased Basavaraj by giving kick over his person and also made to fall on the ground in front of their house, wherein he had been there to demand return of Rs. 2,000/- which was given by his mother PW-10, Puttasiddamma. But the accused had no intention of causing bodily injury, which is likely to cause death or even they had no knowledge that if such act is done is sufficient to cause death of Basvaraju. But subsequent to infliction of injuries, said to be given by these accused persons who picked up quarrel with him otherwise has altercated in front of their house and as where deceased took treatment initially in General Hospital, K.R. Nagara and thereafter was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and thereafter to JSS Hospital, Mysore for further treatment. When he was under treatment, he succumbed to the injuries due to necrotizing fascitis of his left leg parts. But there was no intention in the mind of the accused persons said to cause injuries and also likely to cause his death. 33. There is no dispute that the accused as well as deceased Basavaraj are said to be the relatives. The incident said to have taken place only for the reason of petty quarrel that he was demanding return of Rs. 2,000/- which was given by his mother PW-10 Puttasiddamma. But there is no specific evidence as placed by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt against the accused persons as they are the cause for the death of deceased Basavaraju. 2,000/- which was given by his mother PW-10 Puttasiddamma. But there is no specific evidence as placed by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt against the accused persons as they are the cause for the death of deceased Basavaraju. Though the prosecution has examined several witnesses in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the Trial court has held conviction against this accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. But the ingredients relating to aforesaid offence are concerned, the prosecution has not put forth positive and acceptable evidence to probabalise that this accused is cause for death of deceased Basavaraju and moreover the motive relating to death of Basavaraju and all these altercations in front of their house on the fatal day has not been established by the prosecution and there was no premeditation between the mind of the accused to take away the life of the deceased. 34. All these elements have been seen in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and moreover the deceased has lost his breath after lapse of several days for having taken treatment in various hospitals such as General Hospital, K.R. Nagar, K.R. Hospital, Mysore and last his breath while he was in JSS Hospital, Mysore. But the deceased is said to have given statement before PW-20, Puttaraju who was working as Head Constable. Learned HCGP terms the said statement as dying declaration, but no sanctity has been attached to the statement given by deceased Basavaraju. The same could be seen in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in order to prove the guilt of the accused. But the Trial Court has erroneously has come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused and accordingly held sentence and the same has been challenged by the accused by preferring this appeal. Hence, it requires to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record as there is perversity as well as absurdity in the evidence appreciated by the Trial Court which had come to the conclusion that the accused are deserving for conviction under Section 325 of IPC though there is no specific evidence placed by the prosecution for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the conviction held by the court below requires intervention in terms of the aforesaid reasons. For all these reasons, the accused is deserving for acquittal. 35. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. Therefore, the conviction held by the court below requires intervention in terms of the aforesaid reasons. For all these reasons, the accused is deserving for acquittal. 35. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore in S.C. No. 36/2009 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the accused is hereby acquitted for the charges levelled against him. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.