JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court No.VIII at Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) in SC No.1103/2009 dated 21.06.2010, wherein he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) the accused has preferred this appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2006, at about 6.00 p.m., on O.M.Road near Isolation Hospital bus stop in Bengaluru, when PW1 the complainant who is a BMTC driver had stopped his bus to enable the passengers to alight in the bus stop, the accused over taking the said bus from his left side in his Tempo Traveler motor vehicle, quarreled with the driver of the bus and also manhandled him and assaulted him which resulted in PW1 the complainant sustaining injuries and loosing his front teeth. Thus, the accused having obstructed and assaulted the public servant on duty, committed an offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in the trial Court got examined six witnesses from PWs.1 to 6 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P6. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were examined as exhibits. By its judgment dated 21.06.2010, the trial Court convicted the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5, who claim to be the eye witnesses to the incident, have stated that the accused overtook the standing bus from its left side in his Tempo Traveller vehicle and obstructing the bus, got down from it and then assaulted PW1. If the same were to be believed, there must be evidence to show that there was sufficient space between the place where the bus was said to have been parked and the bus shelter. However, according to the prosecution, the said distance was only between 2 to 3 feet, as such, the occurrence of the incident in the manner as narrated by the prosecution is unbelievable and impossible. 5. However, according to the prosecution, the said distance was only between 2 to 3 feet, as such, the occurrence of the incident in the manner as narrated by the prosecution is unbelievable and impossible. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that the evidence of PW3 is unbelievable, since his name is nowhere mentioned in the complaint, though it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and himself (PW3) were known to each other since prior to the incident. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no material to show that PW5 was a passenger traveling in the alleged bus at the time of incident. Further, even PW5 also does not say as to how the incident took place and what was the initiation for the same. While concluding his argument learned counsel further submitted that nowhere the prosecution has placed any material about mensrea behind the alleged incident. None of the witnesses have spoken as to what made the accused to initiate a quarrel and assault the driver of the bus. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is full of doubt and benefit of which has to be given to the accused, which the trial Court has not done. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his brief argument submitted that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have fully and clearly supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence is trustworthy, as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Among the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the complainant – victim in the incident. While reiterating the contention taken up by him in his complaint, as well in the cross examination as PW1, the witness has also stated that on the alleged date of incident which was on 27.12.2006 when he had stopped his bus near a bus stop at Isolation Hospital, the accused who was the driver of the Tempo Traveler vehicle over took his bus from the left side and parked his vehicle obstructing the movement of the bus and came to him and assaulted him which resulted in he (complainant) loosing his one tooth and blood started oozing from his nose and mouth. At that time, another driver – Sri.Chandrakumar and a passenger by name Sri.Jayavantha, intervened and rescued him. At that time, another driver – Sri.Chandrakumar and a passenger by name Sri.Jayavantha, intervened and rescued him. Then he went to the police station and after lodging a complaint at Ex.P1, he took first aid treatment at Bowring Hospital thereafter at Victoria Hospital. The witness has also identified and got marked scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P.2 stating that he has shown the incident to the police and it was at that place the said panchanama was drawn. He has also marked two trip sheets at Exs.P3 and 4 to show that himself and the conductor were on duty on the said day on that particular trip. 9. In his cross examination, PW1 has specifically stated that he know that a local transport bus is required to be stopped in front of the bus stop keeping a distance of only about 2 to 3 feet from the bus stop / shelter. He also admitted as true that in 2 to 3 feet space no motor vehicle can move. 10. PW2 the conductor of the bus also has supported the evidence of PW1 about the incident and also accused assaulting the driver of the bus resulting in the driver losing one tooth. This witness also has stated that the bus was parked on the left side of the road. At that time, the Tempo Traveler over took the bus from the left side from which the accused got down and assaulted the driver (PW1). PW2 in her cross examination admitted a suggestion as true that on that day the bus was parked on the side of the bus stop keeping only a space of 2 to 3 feet. 11. PW3 claims himself to be another driver of BMTC bus in the same depot and the person known to PWs.1 and 2. According to him, the incident has occurred while the bus was nearing the Isolation hospital. At that time, he saw the accused stopping his vehicle, obstructing the movement of the bus and quarrelling with the driver of the bus. This witness also stated that the accused assaulted on the face of PW1, resulting in PW1 sustaining blood injuries and also loosing his one teeth. Attempts were made in his cross examination to show that his presence on the particular date at the alleged place of incident was not believable. This witness also stated that the accused assaulted on the face of PW1, resulting in PW1 sustaining blood injuries and also loosing his one teeth. Attempts were made in his cross examination to show that his presence on the particular date at the alleged place of incident was not believable. However, the suggestion made to the witness in that regard in the cross examination were not admitted as true by him. 12. PW4 has stated that scene of offence panchanama was drawn in his presence at Ex.P2. 13. PW5 has stated that he was also one of the passenger in the bus at the time of the alleged incident and he has seen the accused over taking the parked bus from its left side and accused getting down from his Tempo Traveller and assaulting on the face of PW1 causing bleeding injuries to him. He was subjected to a detailed cross examination. However, the witness adhered to his original version. 14. PW6 is the Investigating Officer in this matter who has spoken about the investigation conducted by him in this matter commencing from receiving the complaint and submitting the FIR to the Court, till filing of the charge sheet in the matter. According to this witness, during the course of investigation he has also visited the spot and drawn a scene of panchanama as per Ex.P2 recorded the statement of PWs.2, 3 and 5 and also collected the wound certificate of PW1 from the doctor as per Ex.P6 and satisfying himself that there are materials to prove the guilt of the accused has filed charge sheet against him. The denial suggestion made to him in his cross examination were not admitted as true by this witness. 15. By a cursory look at evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 it appears that they have supported the case of the prosecution. It gives an impression that all these witnesses have stated about the occurrence of the incident and that the accused was the culprit of the alleged offence. However, the evidence of these witnesses are required to be analysed carefully. 16. It gives an impression that all these witnesses have stated about the occurrence of the incident and that the accused was the culprit of the alleged offence. However, the evidence of these witnesses are required to be analysed carefully. 16. According to all these four witnesses the incident has occurred only when the bus that was said to be driven by PW1 was halted in front of bus stop near Isolation Hospital to enable the passengers to alight and at which time, the Tempo Traveller vehicle said to have been driven by the accused is said to have over taken the bus from its left side. If the evidence of these witnesses that before commencing the alleged quarrel between PW1 and the accused, the Tempo Traveller over took the bus from its left side has to be believed, it must be satisfied that there was sufficient space for movement of the said Tempo Traveller which is a Light Motor Vehicle on the left side where the bus was said to have been parked. None of these four witness ie., PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 have stated about the availability of such a space on the left side of the bus, so that the Tempo Traveller could have over taken the said bus. 17. PW1 who is the complainant and the alleged victim himself has stated in his cross examination that he knows that not only a local transport bus should make its stop in front of a bus shelter but also the gap between the bus shelter and the parking of the bus would be normally only 2 to 3 feet. Taking the said statement of PW1 to a bit further PW2 who is none else than the conductor of the very same bus and claims to have witnessed the incident has specifically in her cross examination admitted a suggestion as true that at the time of incident the gap between the parked bus and the bus shelter was only 2 to 3 feet. 18. If such a gap between the parked bus and the bus shelter is only 2 to 3 feet, the evidence of all these four witnesses ie., PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 that the Tempo Traveller that was being driven by the accused came from the left side of the bus and over took it, becomes a false statement. 19. 18. If such a gap between the parked bus and the bus shelter is only 2 to 3 feet, the evidence of all these four witnesses ie., PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 that the Tempo Traveller that was being driven by the accused came from the left side of the bus and over took it, becomes a false statement. 19. Assuming for a moment that the accused came to that place in the Tempo Traveler vehicle, but before he is said to have assaulted PW1, was there any altercation that took place between the driver and himself and what made him to obstruct the bus and approach PW1 and assault him has not come in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses. Including the injured, none of the witnesses have stated as to what made the accused to get down from his Tempo Traveler and came to PW1 and assault him. 20. According to learned High Court Government Pleader at the spur of the moment, the accused has done it and all of a sudden it has taken place. Even to say that it was at the spur of the moment or all of a sudden, there ought to be some reason. It is not a reflex action of a human being to any given situation. When the accused is said to have approached PW1 who is said to be in his driving seat in his parked bus there must be some reason. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant / accused that the very reason for which the very incident said to have been taken place has not been established by the prosecution, could not be ignored. 21. PWs.3 and 5 claims to be traveling in the same bus at the time of incident. However, there is a variation between these two witnesses statement about the occurrence of the incident. According to PW3 who also claims to be another driver of the BMTC bus, but, traveling in the bus in which the alleged incident has taken place, has stated in his evidence that the incident took place while the bus that was being driven by PW1 was approaching the stop at Isolation hospital. According to PW3 who also claims to be another driver of the BMTC bus, but, traveling in the bus in which the alleged incident has taken place, has stated in his evidence that the incident took place while the bus that was being driven by PW1 was approaching the stop at Isolation hospital. Where as the evidence of PW5 is that the incident took place when the bus had already stopped at Isolation Hospital bus stop and after the Tempo Traveller being driven by the accused over took the parked bus from its left side. Therefore, when the version of two alleged eye witnesses with respect to an important point of incident vary to a greater extent, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of those two witnesses. 22. Coming to the aspect of the investigation in the matter, according to PW6 the Investigating Officer, he after receiving the complaint and submitting FIR to the Court, also proceeded to the spot of the incident where he drew the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P2 keeping the very same PW3 and one PW4 as panchas to it. However, the said Investigating Officer has only seen the public road as the place of the offence during his investigation and drew the panchanama as per Ex.P2 but has not inspected the bus for any clues or for any evidence. Even the scene of offence panchanama at Ex.P2, except mentioning that the place of offence was a public road does not show or mention about the particular stop on that particular road where the alleged bus was said to have been parked and the distance between the said bus and alleged bus stop / shelter. Thus, Ex.P2 would be of no way helpful to the prosecution to establish that there was sufficient space between the bus and stop which was enabling the accused to over take the bus from its left side. 23. The Investigating Officer after knowing that the alleged incident has taken place inside the bus which was said to have been parked on a public road has not bothered to prepare any sketch of the place of offence. Had there been any sketch prepared by him the same would have been of some help to the prosecution to prove that there was enough space for the Tempo Traveller to over take the bus from the left side. Had there been any sketch prepared by him the same would have been of some help to the prosecution to prove that there was enough space for the Tempo Traveller to over take the bus from the left side. Therefore, the document which the circumstances of the case warranted to be prepared by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in the form of a sketch of the spot has not been prepared by him. 24. As already observed above, when it is the case of the complainant that the alleged incident took place inside the bus and at the assault of the accused he (complainant) also lost his one of the teeth but he does not know where his tooth fell down, then, to show that the alleged loss of tooth was only in the alleged incident or not otherwise, the Investigating Officer was also required to inspect the bus, search for the available clues including the alleged lost tooth and drawn a panchanama. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer has not done it. 25. Though PW6 in his evidence, in a stray sentence has stated that he has sent the broken tooth also to the doctor, but, there is no material to the effect that he had collected or secured the broken tooth during the course of investigation. Apart from the above, the other discrepancy in the case of the prosecution that comes to the fore ground is the Investigating Officer not collecting the blood stained cloth, if any, of the injured. Even according to PW1 in the bleeding he sustained in the injury, a hand kerchief used by him was blood stained. The Investigating Officer no where given reason for non seizure of the blood stained cloth. 26. The Investigating Officer has not come up with any reason for him not collecting any medical record including the one certified, if any, from the Bowring Hospital at which the injured was said to have been treated immediately after the incident. Had the said case sheet or the Medico Legal Extract been secured by the Investigating Officer, same would have thrown some light as to what history the injured had given to the doctor when he was attended to by him. The said omission of the Investigating Officer also adds to the above that has already crept in the case of the prosecution. The said omission of the Investigating Officer also adds to the above that has already crept in the case of the prosecution. When the above mentioned several doubts had crept in the case of the prosecution, the trial Court without noticing the same and only believing the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 has jumped to a conclusion by holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence. Since, serious doubts including the absence of mensreahas crept in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of the said doubt is required to be extended to the accused, as such, the judgment under appeal deserves to be setaside and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 21.06.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court No.VIII, Bengaluru in SC No.1103/2009 holding the appellant herein (accused) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC is setaside. The appellant / accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC. (iii) The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled after the period of appeal or if no appeal is filed. Registry to send copy of this judgment along with lower courts records to the Lower Court without delay.