JUDGMENT H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The appellants were convicted by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court') in S.C. No. 142/2012, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26.02.2014, for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, based on a complaint dated 17.1.2012 said to have been given by the alleged injured Madan, the respondent-Police registered a crime against the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC in their Station Crime No. 12/2012. The summary of the complaint was that, on the previous day i.e., on 16.1.2012, when the injured is said to have been talking along with his two friends by name Ravi and Chandra Kumar, near Surya Hotel in Hiriyur town, within the limits of complainant-Police Station, all the present appellants/accused coming in an autorickshaw, all of a sudden attacked the complainant-Madan and assaulted him with stone, causing injuries to him and also abused him in filthy language and attempted to cause his murder and thereby have committed the alleged offence. After completing the investigation, the respondent-Police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Since the accused did not plead guilty, the trial was held, wherein the prosecution in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, examined ten witnesses from PW. 1 to PW-10 and got marked documents from Exs. P-1 to P-10(b) and material objects at MO-1 and MO-2 were marked. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. After hearing the arguments from both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26.02.2014, though acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, however, it convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused have preferred this appeal. 4. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused have preferred this appeal. 4. The respondent - State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. The records from the trial Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. The appellants/accused earlier were being represented by their counsel. However, when the matter was listed for final hearing, the said learned counsel for the appellants had remained absent. Considering the fact that the appeal was of the year 2014 and causing further delay in disposing of the matter was not in the best interest of justice, this Court by its detailed order dated 04.03.2020 appointed learned counsel Sri Rakshith R., as an Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of the appellants and conduct the case of the appellants in this matter. Accordingly, the said learned Amicus Curiae is representing the appellants in the matter. 7. Heard arguments of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. 8. Perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgment and also Trial Court records. 9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 10. In view of the above, the points that arise for my consideration are: 1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 17.1.2012, in front of Surya Hotel, within the limits of complainant-Police Station at Hiriyur Town, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PW-1 Madan by assaulting him with stone at MO-1 and thereby have committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC? 2) Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 11. Among the ten witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the material and most important witnesses are PWs. 1, 2 and 3. Admittedly, these three witnesses are close friends inter se. PW-1 - Madan and PW-2 - Ravikumar, in their evidence have stated that on 17.1.2012, at about 3.00 p.m., both of them while returning from Petrol Bunk after refilling the fuel to their motorcycle, saw CW-3 -Chandra Kumar, their another friend in front of Surya Hotel at Hiriyuru. Admittedly, these three witnesses are close friends inter se. PW-1 - Madan and PW-2 - Ravikumar, in their evidence have stated that on 17.1.2012, at about 3.00 p.m., both of them while returning from Petrol Bunk after refilling the fuel to their motorcycle, saw CW-3 -Chandra Kumar, their another friend in front of Surya Hotel at Hiriyuru. In order to talk to him, they stopped their motorcycle and while all the three of them were talking with each other, all the four accused came there in an autorickshaw and while abusing PW-1 in vulgar language, they assaulted PW-1 Madan Kumar. According to PW-1 - Madan Kumar, before he was assaulted by the accused, it was accused No. 2 - Kanaka, accused No. 3-Veeresh and accused No. 4-Shashi, pushed him out of the motorcycle and knocked him down and then accused No. 1 dropped a big size stone on his head twice. The other three accused also assaulted with their hands and legs. His two friends - Ravi and Chandra Kumar came to rescue him and shifted him to Government Hospital in an autorickshaw. While he was in the Government Hospital, the police came there, before whom, he narrated the incident and gave a complaint, which he has identified at Ex. P-1. He has also stated that in the attack made by the accused upon him, he sustained injuries, whereunder his shirt was blood stained. He took treatment both at Hiriyuru Hospital and thereafter at NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru. The witness has identified the stone said to have been used in the commission of crime at MO-1 and the shirt at MO-2. 12. PW-2 while supporting the evidence of PW-1 regarding the incident has stated that it was accused No. 1 Raghu who assaulted PW-1 with stone on his head causing bleeding injuries to him. However, PW-3 - Chandra Kumar stated that one among the accused has assaulted PW-1 with a stone. However, both the witnesses stated that they rescued the injured Madan Kumar and shifted him to Government Hospital. Both the witnesses have identified the accused in the Court. PW-2 further stated that on the same day in the evening, the police came to the spot of the offence and seized the stone from the spot under panchanama at Ex. P-2. However, both the witnesses stated that they rescued the injured Madan Kumar and shifted him to Government Hospital. Both the witnesses have identified the accused in the Court. PW-2 further stated that on the same day in the evening, the police came to the spot of the offence and seized the stone from the spot under panchanama at Ex. P-2. All these three witnesses were subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side, wherein they adhered to their original version. 13. PW-4 - Bhuvaneshwar has stated that on 16.1.2012, in the afternoon, while he came out of the hotel after lunch, the four accused assaulted him with hands and it was PW-1 Madan who rescued him and took him to his house. 14. PW-5 - Umashankar, corroborating the evidence of PW-2 that scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. P-2 was drawn in his presence, also stated that the stone at MO-1 was seized under the said panchanama at Ex. P-2. He further stated that in the police station on the next day, the shirt worn by PW-1 at the time of incident was seized as the same was produced by PW-3 -Chandra Kumar. He has identified the said seizure panchanama of shirt at Ex. P-3. The witness has identified the stone and the shirt respectively at MO-1 and MO-2. 15. PW-6 - N. Lakshminarayana, a Police Constable is the carrier of FIR from the police station to the Court and he has deposed accordingly. 16. PW-7 - L. Murthy, the Head Constable of the respondent-Police Station has stated that based on Medico Legal Case received by him from the Government Hospital at Hiriyuru on 17.1.2012 at 4.00 p.m., he went to the said hospital and recorded the statement of injured Madan as per Ex. P-1 and produced the same to his Police Sub-Inspector-Dasharath. 17. PW-8 - Sri Lingegowda, a Scientific Officer at Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Davanagere, has stated that he has examined two articles sent by the Investigating Officer and noticed that both the articles, which was a shirt and a stone, was stained with human blood with AB group. He has issued a report as per Ex. P-5. 18. PW-9 - Dasharath, the then Police Sub-Inspector of respondent-Police Station has stated that on 17.1.2012, he received the complainants statement recorded by PW-7 and which was produced before him. He has issued a report as per Ex. P-5. 18. PW-9 - Dasharath, the then Police Sub-Inspector of respondent-Police Station has stated that on 17.1.2012, he received the complainants statement recorded by PW-7 and which was produced before him. Based on the said statement, he registered a crime in their Station Crime No. 12/2012, against accused and prepared FIR as per Ex. P-4 and submitted the same to the Court through his staff. On the same evening, he proceeded to the spot of the offence and drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. P-2, wherein he seized a stone, which he has identified at MO-1. The witness has also stated that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of several of the witnesses. He also prepared a sketch of the place of offence as per Ex. P-6. The witness has further stated that on 18.1.2012, even PW-3 - Chandra Kumar produced a khaki colour full-arm shirt stating that it was worn by the injured at the time of the incident. As such, he seized the shirt by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex. P-3. The witness has identified the said shirt at MO-2. He also stated that on 23.1.2012, he got the blood grouping test of the injured Madan at Vinayaka Clinical Laboratory, Hiriyuru and received the report that the blood group pertains to AB+ve. On the next day, he sent the seized articles, which are a stone and a shirt for its chemical examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory at Davanagere. He further stated that during the course of the investigation, the accused appeared before him along with the Court order enlarging them on anticipatory bail. After completing the investigation on 26.4.2012, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross-examination were not admitted as true by this witness. 19. PW-10 - Dr. B.S. Thippeswamy, has stated that while working as a Medical Officer at General Hospital, Hiriyuru, on contract basis, on 17.1.2012, at 3.15 p.m., he has examined the injured-Madan, who had come to his hospital along with some persons. It was somebody who accompanied the injured gave the history that injured Madan was assaulted by Raghu, Keshava and others at about 3.00 p.m. on that day. The witness has stated that he noticed lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 x 0.25 cms. It was somebody who accompanied the injured gave the history that injured Madan was assaulted by Raghu, Keshava and others at about 3.00 p.m. on that day. The witness has stated that he noticed lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 x 0.25 cms. over the vertex of the head and another lacerated wound 6 x 1 x 1 cms. over the right parietal region of the head of the injured. He further stated that the MLC Register disclose that the patient was referred to NIMHANS at Bengaluru. He further stated that he has issued a wound certificate as per Ex. P-7. He opined that though he has stated that both injuries were simple in nature in the wound certificate, but, he changes his opinion with respect to the second injury by calling it as grievous in nature. The witness further stated that at the request of the Investigating Officer about the opinion regarding the possibility of occurrence of the injuries, he after seeing the stone at MO-1, opined that the injured was assaulted with the said stone. In that regard, the witness has identified two letters at Exs. P-8 and P-9. The witness further stated that the history in the wound certificate is wrongly mentioned as road traffic accident, but, in MLC Register, it is correctly written as assault by Raghu, Keshava and others. After verifying the original register, the trial Court marked a copy of the said register at Ex. P-10(b). The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination, wherein, except admitting a suggestion that the injuries mentioned in Ex. P-7 are also likely to occur if a person falls down while riding a motorcycle, he adhered to his original version. 20. In the light of the above, it was the argument of learned Amicus Curiae that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is at great variance. Regarding the manner and occurrence of the incident and the injuries sustained, there is no corroboration. He further submits that the very medical evidence of the doctor is not reliable and trustworthy since the doctor has changed his stand and opinion at several places for no valid reasons. Regarding the manner and occurrence of the incident and the injuries sustained, there is no corroboration. He further submits that the very medical evidence of the doctor is not reliable and trustworthy since the doctor has changed his stand and opinion at several places for no valid reasons. Learned counsel gave more emphasis on the point that in spite of the alleged incident is said to have taken place in a public place, that too, in a commercial building, where large number of people had gathered there, the Investigating Officer has not bothered to collect the statements of any of the localities, including any member of the gathering who had assembled in the spot of the offence. Learned counsel also submitted that evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 are not at all believable because they are interested witnesses being the friends of PW-1. He also submits that the evidence of PW-1 is also full of suspicion. As such, in the absence of any independent direct witnesses and in the absence of any overt act alleged against accused Nos. 2 to 4, the judgment of conviction pronounced by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence. 21. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 are cogent and corroborative to each other which proves beyond reasonable doubt not only the incident, but, also the role of each of the accused therein which entitles them to hold guilty for the alleged offence. He further submits that merely because PWs. 2 and 3 are said to be the friends of PW-1, their evidence cannot be ignored ipso facto. He also submitted that the recovery of the stone at MO-1 and the blood stained shirt at MO-2 further corroborates the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proving that it was the accused who by making use of the weapon at MO-1 has caused hurt to PW-1. He also submitted that the recovery of the stone at MO-1 and the blood stained shirt at MO-2 further corroborates the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proving that it was the accused who by making use of the weapon at MO-1 has caused hurt to PW-1. He further stated that though the doctor has changed his opinion from his original opinion given in the wound certificate, but, the justification of the explanation given by the doctor as PW-10 in that regard is acceptable and convincing, as such, the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence led by the prosecution, appreciating which in their proper perspective, the trial Court rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offence. 22. A bare reading of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 though apparently would go to show that, all the three of them have uniformly stated that on the date of the alleged incident, all the accused and more particularly, accused No. 1 assaulted PW-1 - Madan Kumar with a stone inflicting injuries upon him, but before concluding so, their evidence requires a detailed scrutiny. All these three witnesses have stated that, by some reason they met each other and were talking in front of Surya Hotel in Hiriyuru town on 17-01-2012 at about 3:00 p.m. when the alleged incident is said to have taken place. According to all these three witnesses, the alleged incident has taken place in a public place where there will be not only many commercial shops in existence but large number of public movement was also there. However, strangely, except these three witnesses who corroborate inter se, none of the independent witnesses has been enquired or examined either by the Investigating Officer or by the prosecution. Therefore, at the outset, it has to be noticed that, the only material witnesses upon whom the prosecution banks upon is, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who admittedly are friends inter se. 23. Even among these three witnesses, i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, the allegations of overt act have been made mainly as against accused No. 1/appellant No. 1 alone. Except PW-1 in his examination-in-chief, stating that remaining three accused (accused No. 2, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4) pulled him of the motor cycle and knocked him down, no other overt act has been specifically alleged against them in the alleged incident. Except PW-1 in his examination-in-chief, stating that remaining three accused (accused No. 2, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4) pulled him of the motor cycle and knocked him down, no other overt act has been specifically alleged against them in the alleged incident. Therefore, it creates a doubt in the beginning that, had really all the four accused had a common intention among them of either killing PW-1 or to voluntarily cause hurt to him, then, it was expected that the remaining three accused i.e. accused No. 2, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 also committing the same overt act in furtherance of their common intention as against PW-1. Thus, at the threshold, when the entire allegation of all the material prosecution witnesses is concentrating only as against accused No. 1, and nobodys evidence raises their finger as against remaining three accused alleging any overt act as against them, under the circumstances of the case, it creates a doubt as to whether the accused persons did share a common intention among themselves. 24. Even with respect to description of the alleged incident, some variations in the evidence of these three witnesses can be noticed. According to PW-1, at the time of the incident, in that area, about 20 to 30 people had gathered and accused No. 1 had dropped a big stone on his head two times. However, he has not stated anything about he loosing his consciousness and falling unconscious on the spot. On the other hand, PW-2, the alleged second eye witness, in his cross-examination has stated that, at the time of incident, there was a gathering of about 15 to 20 persons and the accused No. 1 assaulting on the head of PW-1 with a stone was not a repetitive act. Further, the moment PW-1 was assaulted with a stone, he fell unconscious on the spot. On the other hand, PW-3 the alleged third eye witness to the incident has confined the total duration of the incident only for five minutes, but according to him, he does not know as to who assaulted PW-1 with a stone, though PW-1 by such an assault with a stone is said to have fallen unconscious on the spot. On the other hand, PW-3 the alleged third eye witness to the incident has confined the total duration of the incident only for five minutes, but according to him, he does not know as to who assaulted PW-1 with a stone, though PW-1 by such an assault with a stone is said to have fallen unconscious on the spot. This goes to show that, there is variance about the status of PW-1 immediately after getting assaulted, in the statement of PW-1 on the one hand and PW-2 and PW-3 on the other hand. Similarly when PW-3 has clearly stated that he knows all the accused and according to him, there were only four accused among whom only one had used a stone in assaulting PW-1, his statement that he does not know as to who assaulted PW-1 with a stone, creates a doubt about he being present at the place of the alleged incident. Further, with respect to the gathering of the people also, as observed above, there are three different versions given by these three witnesses. When PW-1 says that there was gathering of about 20 persons, according to PW-2, it is 15 persons and according to PW-3, it is 50 persons. The gathering between 15 to 50 persons can be easily noticed and roughly estimated without exactly counting them as to whether it is a gathering within 20 to 25 persons or a big gathering of about 50 persons. Even in the said description also, there is variation in the versions of all these three alleged eye witnesses. 25. With respect to the alleged weapon said to have been used by accused No. 1 in his alleged assault upon PW-1, even though all the three witnesses i.e. PW-1 PW-2, and PW-3 have described the said article as a stone and identified the same at MO-1, but, in describing the type of stone, how they have seen and identified the object at the time of the incident is once again at variance. PW-1 has specifically stated that the said stone was a big stone. By stating so, he has shown that the object was larger in its size. PW-1 has specifically stated that the said stone was a big stone. By stating so, he has shown that the object was larger in its size. PW-2 without attributing any quality to the said stone has simply called it as a stone in his evidence, whereas, PW-3 has qualified it by calling it as a chappadi kallu which means a crude granite slab, whereas PW-9 - Investigating Officer has described the stone as a flat stone (chappate kallu - ). Had really PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 identified and considered a common single object as the only article with which injured was assaulted, then, their description with respect to the said article was also expected to come in uniformity. However, as observed above, all the three witnesses and if Investigating Officer is also included, then, all the four witnesses have described the stone in different manner which does not clearly tally or match with one another. It is nobodys case that the said stone at MO-1 can be called either as a crude granite slab or also as a flat stone or merely with the name stone. Thus, their evidence in describing the sole alleged weapon alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime since is also at variance, their evidence further imbibes some more doubt in believing them. 26. As observed above, PW-1 has stated that he was assaulted twice with the same stone which no other witness has stated that except stating that PW-1 was assaulted with a stone. Had really the assault was only in two attempts which when injured could have counted, then, being the alleged eye witnesses said to have been standing along with PW-1 in the spot, PW-2 and PW-3 could have also noticed as to how many times and in what manner accused No. 1 had assaulted PW-1. They have not stated that PW-1 was assaulted for more than once by accused No. 1. 27. It is observed above that, it is only PW-2 and PW-3 who have stated that, at the assault alleged to have been made by accused No. 1, the injured PW-1 fell unconscious, however, except PW-2 and PW-3, no other witness including PW-1 has anywhere stated about PW-1 loosing consciousness at the alleged assault by accused No. 1. 27. It is observed above that, it is only PW-2 and PW-3 who have stated that, at the assault alleged to have been made by accused No. 1, the injured PW-1 fell unconscious, however, except PW-2 and PW-3, no other witness including PW-1 has anywhere stated about PW-1 loosing consciousness at the alleged assault by accused No. 1. Had really PW-1 fallen unconscious at the alleged assault by accused No. 1, then, he would have necessarily stated the same in his evidence which he has not done. This also creates a doubt in believing the version of these alleged eye witnesses. 28. According to PW-1, who is the complainant-cum-injured, at the time of incident, he was wearing a coffee colour shirt. He has identified said shirt stating to be the shirt at MO-2. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief initially stated that, the injured was wearing a white shirt with stripes. However, immediately, he stated that he does not remember the colour of the shirt. Still, he has identified the very same shirt at MO-2 as the one worn by PW-1 at the time of the incident. Interestingly, PW-3 has stated that at the time of incident, the injured was wearing a snuff colour shirt. However, he has identified the shirt at MO-2 as the one worn by PW-1 at the time of the incident, after stating that the shirt at MO-2 has the colour of khakee. Interestingly, PW-9 - Investigating Officer has described the shirt at MO-2 seized by him as the one worn by the injured at the time of the incident as a full-arm shirt of khakee colour. Thus, with respect to the alleged shirt worn by the injured at the time of the incident, each of the witnesses has stated different colours, attributing three different colours to the very same shirt. When a person said to have been wearing it at the time of the incident calls it as a coffee colour, PW-3 calls the same shirt as a snuff in colour, however, stating that colour of the shirt worn by the injured was snuff colour shirt, still, he identifies the khakee colour shirt. When a person said to have been wearing it at the time of the incident calls it as a coffee colour, PW-3 calls the same shirt as a snuff in colour, however, stating that colour of the shirt worn by the injured was snuff colour shirt, still, he identifies the khakee colour shirt. In this way, when all the three material witnesses have described the colour of the shirt worn by the injured in three different ways, that also further strengthens the suspicion that has already crept in the case of the prosecution showing that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is bereft of any uniformity in them, as such, it is not safe to believe them. It is in the above circumstance when the alleged description about the incident by three alleged eye witnesses who are friends among themselves fails to give a uniform picture about the incident including the dress worn by the injured, it makes stronger about the necessity of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of an independent witness in the matter. The said Investigating Officer himself in his cross-examination, has stated that there were several commercial shops in the area where the incident had taken place and he had enquired with them, but, he has not recorded their statements. He further stated that there was necessity of recording their statements. That means, the Investigating Officer himself was aware that there was necessity of recording their statements, still he has not recorded the same. Had he really recorded the statements of the neighbouring shop owners, or any of the public alleged to have been gathered in the spot, at the time of the incident, then, their evidence would have come to the rescue of the prosecution in proving the alleged guilt against the accused. 29. Assuming for a moment that the object with which PW-1 was assaulted was a stone, still, a doubt arises as to, at whose instance the said stone was seized. No doubt, PW-2 and PW-5 have stated that the said stone at MO-1 was seized in their presence by drawing a panchanama as per Ex. P-2, however, neither of these two witnesses have stated as to who shown the said stone to the Police stating that the same was the one used in the alleged commission of the crime. No doubt, PW-2 and PW-5 have stated that the said stone at MO-1 was seized in their presence by drawing a panchanama as per Ex. P-2, however, neither of these two witnesses have stated as to who shown the said stone to the Police stating that the same was the one used in the alleged commission of the crime. Even the evidence of PW-9 - Investigating Officer is also silent on the said point. Merely because PW-2, PW-5 and PW-9 say that the stone at MO-1 was seized from the spot, unless the prosecution shows to the Court through evidence as to who identified the said stone for its seizure, the alleged seizure of the said article would not give any further support to the case of the prosecution in the present circumstance of the case. It is also because it is only PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 who are said to have seen the alleged stone while it was being used in the alleged commission of the crime. Since none of them has stated that any of them have identified the said stone as the one used in the commission of crime, then, it is not known as to on what basis the Investigating Officer has picked up a particular stone as the one alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime. Even though said stone at MO-1 is subsequently proved to have stains of blood on it, by that itself, it cannot be concluded that, that was the very stone which was used in the alleged commission of the crime, for the reasons given above. Thus, the alleged seizure of the stone also further enlarges the suspicion which has already crept in the case of the prosecution. 30. According to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, immediately after the incident, PW-2 and PW-3 shifted the injured PW-1 to the local Government Hospital and got him the medical treatment. PW-2 has stated that it was himself who told the Doctor that he had brought the injured Madan. He further stated that he also told the Doctor as to who assaulted injured Madan and how they assaulted him, which means, according to PW-2, he has given the complete history to the treating Doctor immediately the patient (PW-1) was brought to the said Doctor by him. He further stated that he also told the Doctor as to who assaulted injured Madan and how they assaulted him, which means, according to PW-2, he has given the complete history to the treating Doctor immediately the patient (PW-1) was brought to the said Doctor by him. However, PW-3 who also claims to have accompanied PW-2 in shifting the injured to the Hospital has stated that, in the Hospital, the Doctor did not enquire him about the history, but he entrusted the responsibility of getting the treatment to PW-1 to one Sri. Umashankar and one Sri. Manikantha and left the Hospital. None of these three witnesses, i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have anywhere stated as to how and why said Umashankar and Manikantha were present in the Hospital at that time. In such a situation, the only person who might have given details to the Doctor about the incident was the alleged eye witness i.e. PW-2 and PW-2 also claims that it was him who has given the history of the incident to the Doctor. 31. The said Doctor-PW-10 who has stated that he treated the injured PW-1 Madan at 3:15 p.m. on 17-01-2012, though in the evidence has stated that the injured was brought with the history of assault by one Raghu, Keshava and others, but has himself stated in the Would Certificate issued by him, which is at Ex. P-7 that, the patient was brought to him with the history of RTA meaning a Road Traffic Accident. Though he calls it as a mistake, but he has not given any reason for the alleged mistake. In the absence of the alleged mistake being explained, a mere say that it was by mistake, cannot make his evidence to believe about the serious discrepancy that has crept in his act of documenting the case history in a different manner and giving the history orally (in his evidence) in a diametrically opposite manner. A perusal of the Wound Certificate at Ex. P-7 also would go to show that it is clearly mentioned in it that the patient was brought with the history of RTA. When according to PW-2, he himself has narrated the history, it is not expected that being a medical Doctor, he would commit such a great mistake, that too, without explaining how the alleged mistake has happened. P-7 also would go to show that it is clearly mentioned in it that the patient was brought with the history of RTA. When according to PW-2, he himself has narrated the history, it is not expected that being a medical Doctor, he would commit such a great mistake, that too, without explaining how the alleged mistake has happened. Therefore, his contention that in Medico-Legal Case Register, he had recorded the correct history would not take away the history mentioned as RTA by him in the Wound Certificate that has been issued by him. Therefore, the medical evidence with respect to the history of the alleged incident though can be the sole basis to decide the cause for the injures, still, great variations in the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, with that of Ex. P-7 about the history of the injured further strengthens the doubt in believing the case of the prosecution. 32. The very same Doctor PW-10 has not stopped his confusion attitude or act there itself. He has further continued it in showing that he has committed one more mistake in the Wound Certificate issued by him at Ex. P-7. According to the Wound Certificate (Ex. P-7) which PW-10 claims that the same has been issued by him, both the injuries which were lacerated wounds were considered as simple in nature. However, the said Doctor in his evidence as PW-10 has stated that he changes his opinion with regard to the nature of the second injury and calls it as grievous in nature. The justification given by him for changing his opinion was because of the letter given by NIMHANS which was disclosing that there was minimal depressed fracture of right parietal bone. The said justification given by the Doctor for changing his opinion with regard to the nature of the second injury is not acceptable for the reason that, the very same Doctor in his cross-examination has admitted a suggestion as true that he has issued the Wound Certificate at Ex. P-7 only after seeing the letter issued by NIMHANS. That means before he could issue the Wound Certificate at Ex. P-7, he had already gone through and seen the letter said to have been issued by NIMHANs. P-7 only after seeing the letter issued by NIMHANS. That means before he could issue the Wound Certificate at Ex. P-7, he had already gone through and seen the letter said to have been issued by NIMHANs. As such, his statement that the letter issued by the NIMHANS has made him to change his opinion in the Wound Certificate, is not justifiable, rather shows his negligent attitude in the matter. Secondly, as rightly observed by the learned counsel/amicus curiae for the appellants, a perusal of the alleged letter/case sheet of the NIMHANS which is also the part of the record, would go to show that, no where the said document mentions anything about the fracture on the body of the injured PW-1 much less to his head region. It only mentions about the presence of a minimal depressed right parietal bone as found in the CT scan examination. It is not known how PW-10 inferred that, the report mentions the presence of a fracture in the said letter. Therefore, the medical evidence being highly confusing and ambiguous and admittedly with some mistakes committed by the Doctor also prevents in believing and acting upon the same. This also puts a brake in the case of the prosecution in proving the alleged guilt against the accused. 33. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report at Ex. P-5 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer as PW-9 and also the evidence of PW-8 - the Scientific Officer of FSL would go to show that, the alleged seized articles at MO-1 and MO-2 which were a stone and a shirt were sent to its chemical examination by the Investigating Officer, after examination of which, PW-8 has given his report as per Ex. P-5. The evidence of PW-8 and Ex. P-5 would go to show that both the articles were found consisting of human blood with AB Group. The Investigating Officer has stated that during the course of his investigation, he sent PW-1 to a laboratory by name Vinayaka Clinical Laboratory and got his blood group test done. He received the report that his blood group pertains to AB+ve. In his cross-examination, the said Investigating Officer though has denied that he did not get the blood group test done of the injured, however, admitted that he did not produce any documents to show that such a blood group test was done in the matter. He received the report that his blood group pertains to AB+ve. In his cross-examination, the said Investigating Officer though has denied that he did not get the blood group test done of the injured, however, admitted that he did not produce any documents to show that such a blood group test was done in the matter. Admittedly, the said blood group test report also has not been produced and marked as exhibit in the matter. Thus, there is no proof to believe that the blood group of the injured PW-1 was AB+ve. In such an event, merely because MO-1 and MO-2 are said to have been stained with human blood of AB group on them, by itself, it cannot be concluded that the said blood group was matching with that of the blood group of the injured complainant PW-1. This further prevents the case of the prosecution from believing its narration about the incident and more particularly, about the alleged role of the accused in it. 34. The motive attributed by the prosecution behind the alleged commission of the crime is that, on the previous day to the date of incident i.e. on 16-01-2012, when a friend of PW-1 by name Bhuvaneshwara (PW-4) was being assaulted by the accused, it was PW-1 - Madan who rescued PW-4. It is with that vengeance, the accused have assaulted PW-1 on the very next day. To support the case of the prosecution, said Bhuvaneshwara was examined as PW-4 who stated that, on 16-01-2012, in the afternoon, four accused assaulted him in front of a Hotel and it was PW-1 who rescued him. However, the said witness nowhere stated in his evidence that those four accused who assaulted him are the very same accused in this case nor he identified those four accused as the one who are the accused in the present case. Therefore, merely because PW-4 was said to have been assaulted by four accused persons, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that those accused were the present accused persons in this case/appeal. Further, even though PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have stated about the very same act of PW-1 rescuing PW-4 - Bhuvaneshwara on the previous day to the date of incident, but, their evidence do not say that on that day, what was the specific motive for the present accused/appellants in assaulting the complainant. Further, even though PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have stated about the very same act of PW-1 rescuing PW-4 - Bhuvaneshwara on the previous day to the date of incident, but, their evidence do not say that on that day, what was the specific motive for the present accused/appellants in assaulting the complainant. As such, what is not specifically attributed or established, cannot be presumed to be a motive behind the alleged commission of the crime. On this count also, the prosecutions case stands at a distance from reaching the goal of proof. With respect to the alleged seizure of the shirt at MO-2 also, even according to prosecution and more particularly, PW-3 who is a panch for the seizure panchanama of the shirt, it was him who has produced the said shirt at MO-2 and the said shirt worn by Madan was handed over to him and he had thrown it in a park which was in the premises of the Hospital. It was only on the next day when the Police asked him to produce, he went to the park and brought the said shirt and produced it. The said version is not only difficult but also unsafe to believe for the reason that, when admittedly the said shirt was thrown in a park, which is a public place like a Hospital premises, where hundreds of patients/visitors would visit every day and many of them might have thrown their blood stained clothes, there is no guarantee that PW-3 had brought the very same shirt which was worn by PW-1, at the time of the incident. This suspicion also gains support for the reason that, as already observed above, about the description of the colour of the shirt and its design, there are different versions from all the material prosecution witnesses. As such, though MO-2 is a blood stained shirt, but still, it is not safe to believe that the same was the shirt that was worn by PW-1 at the time of the incident. All the above material suspicions which have crept in the case of the prosecution lead to several doubts, all of which have remained unanswered satisfactorily. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was required to be given to the accused. In that regard, the defence of the accused/appellant also requires to be considered. 35. All the above material suspicions which have crept in the case of the prosecution lead to several doubts, all of which have remained unanswered satisfactorily. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was required to be given to the accused. In that regard, the defence of the accused/appellant also requires to be considered. 35. The accused defence was that PW-1 was an accused in a case relating to murder of the brother-in-law of accused No. 1, as such, though PW-1 had sustained injury by a fall from a motor cycle, making use of the same, he had lodged a false complaint against the accused. Suggestions to that effect were made to all the material witnesses, however, those witnesses have not admitted those suggestions as true. Still in the cross-examination of PW-1/injured himself, it was suggested that one Sri. Tippeswamy was the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 and one Sri. Eshwarappa also was a relative of the accused No. 1. The witness admitted that a complaint was registered against him in relation to an offence of murdering Pape @ Shivakumar and attempting to murder the said Tippeswamy. The witness himself stated that said Pape @ Shivakumar and Tippeswamy were residents of Kottige village. The witness further admitted that he was accused No. 7 in the murder case and his alias name is Kutti. Thus, the defence could able to bring out from the mouth of PW-1 that, PW-1 was an accused in a criminal case wherein the present accused No. 1 was a close relative of one of the victim. It was also suggested to PW-1 that the injuries sustained by him were caused due to a fall from a motor cycle. Though the witness has denied, but the Doctor as PW-10 has admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries found on the injured are also likely to occur if a person falls down while riding a motor cycle. Thus, the probability of such an injury by some other manner and that PW-1 was an accused in a criminal case where present accused No. 1 was also an accused, would all further prevent the case of the prosecution from believing the occurrence of injury in the manner as depicted by it. Thus, the probability of such an injury by some other manner and that PW-1 was an accused in a criminal case where present accused No. 1 was also an accused, would all further prevent the case of the prosecution from believing the occurrence of injury in the manner as depicted by it. Thus in totality, as observed above, the prosecution case, though apparently appears to show that three material witnesses including the injured have supported, but still, a closer and careful scrutiny of the evidence of these prosecution witnesses has exposed large gaps in it leading to the existence of several serious doubts in it. Since the benefit of those doubts are naturally required to be given to the accused, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court proves to be an erroneous judgment. 36. The Trial Court without appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from a close angle has blatantly accepted them on its facial value and proceeded to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence. Since the said judgment is now proved to be an erroneous one, the same has to be set aside and consequently, the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence. For the said purpose, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence under appeal deserves interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] The appeal filed by accused/appellants is allowed; [ii] The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26-02-2014 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, in Sessions Case No. 142/2012, holding the accused/appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them accordingly, is set aside; [iii] The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 4, i.e. (1) Raghu @ Dappagunte Raghu, S/o. Rajanna, aged about 22 years, resident of Nanjaiahna Kottige, Hiriyuru town, native of Dappagunte village near Huliyar; (2) Kanaka @ Kanakadasa S/o. Laxmana, aged about 22 years, resident of K.M. Kottige, Hiriyuru town; (3) S. Veeresh S/o. Siddappa, aged about 22 years, resident of K.M. Kottige, Hiriyuru town; and (4) Shashi @ Shashikumar, S/o. late Sidramanna, aged about 22 years, resident of K.M. Kottige, Hiriyuru, are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC; [iv] The fine amounts, if any deposited by the accused, in the Trial Court be refunded to them after the period of appeal and if no appeal is preferred; The Court acknowledges the services rendered by Mr. Rakshith R., learned amicus curiae for the appellants in this matter and recommends the registry to consider paying him an honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs. 5,000/-. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the Trial Court immediately. Registry to transmit todays order to the jail authorities, forthwith.