JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court in SC-No-76/2015 dated 30-03-2016 acquitting respondent/accused for offences punishable under Sections 504 307 324 114 506(B) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short ‘IPC’)- State has filed this appeal seeking to set aside judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court and consequently to convict accused for aforesaid offences considering grounds urged in appeal memo- 2- Court have heard arguments advanced by learned High Court Government Pleader for State and so also Sri C-R-Gopalaswamy learned counsel for respondents/ accused who are present before Court physically- Perused impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court in SC-No-76/2015- 3- Factual matrix of this appeal is as under: It transpires from case of prosecution that on 19-07-2014 at about 6-30 p-m- when CW-1-Venkatesha P-R- who is alleged to be an injured came infront of shop of Naganna to bring some workers for purpose of attending his work in meanwhile accused Nos-1 to 3 allegedly picked up a quarrel with injured Venkatesha by abusing him in a filthy language with an intention to take away his life- Therefore accused No-2 alleged to hit CW-1-Venkatesha with a means of stick on his back left and right shoulder accused No-3 alleged to hit CW-1-Venkatesha with means of a chopper on his head and accused No-1 alleged to hit CW-1-injured Venkatesha with a means of a stick on his left hand and as a result of same it caused grievous injuries to him- During course of incident accused No-4 who alleged to instigate accused Nos-1 to 3 to take away life of CW-1-Venkatesha- In pursuance of act of accused on filing of a complaint on 20-07-2014 a criminal law was set into motion by registering case in Crime No-112/2014 for offences which are reflected in FIR- Subsequent to registration of FIR Investigating Officer has taken up case for investigation and investigation has been thoroughly done and has laid chargesheet against accused before Court of having jurisdiction- 4- Subsequent to laying of chargesheet against accused by Investigating Agency before Committal Court case has been committed by Committal Court by passing an order under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short ‘Cr-PC’) by following procedure under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr-PC- Accordingly case has been committed to Court of Sessions for trial- Subsequent to committing of case to of chargesheet against accused by Investigating Agency before Committal Court case has been committed by Committal Court by passing an order under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short ‘Cr-PC’) by following procedure under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr-PC- Accordingly case has been committed to Court of Sessions for trial- Subsequent to committing of case to trial Court trial Court had framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 307 324 504 506(B) and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC 1860 whereby accused have been declined charges framed against them but claims have been tried- Accordingly plea of accused persons has been recorded separately- 5- Subsequent to framing of charges by trial Court prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to examine witnesses as per PWs-1 to 14 and got marked documents as per Exs-P1 to P22 and got marked material objections as per M-Os-1 to 4- On closure of evidence on part of prosecution accused persons were examined as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr-PC for enabling incriminating evidence whereby accused have declined truth of evidence of prosecution adduced so far- After recording of incriminating statements under Section 313 of Cr-PC accused did not come forward to adduce any evidence on side of defence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr-PC- Subsequent to closure of evidence trial Court has heard arguments advanced by prosecution and so also counsel on side of defence and so also evaluating evidence supported with documents as per Exs-P1 to P22 arrived at a conclusion that prosecution did not establish guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently rendered judgment of acquittal by assigning reasons- 6- judgment of acquittal has been challenged by State under this appeal by urging various grounds- 7- Learned High Court Government Pleader for State has relied on evidence of PW-1-Venkatesha who is none other than injured and he took a treatment initially by PW-13-Dr-Sumathi S- at Kunigal Government Hospital and subsequently he has been shifted to NIMHANS Hospital Bengaluru for further treatment- Thereafter injured was subjected to treatment by PW-6-Dr-Shashidhara who has issued wound certificate at Ex-P12- PW-1-Venkatesha has given statement as per Ex-P1 and his evidence has supported averments made in complaint at Ex-P2- However Ex-P2 has been filed by his father PW-9-Ramananda and based upon his complaint a criminal law was set into motion and an FIR has been registered as per Ex-P14 subjected to treatment by PW-6-Dr-Shashidhara who has issued wound certificate at Ex-P12- PW-1-Venkatesha has given statement as per Ex-P1 and his evidence has supported averments made in complaint at Ex-P2- However Ex-P2 has been filed by his father PW-9-Ramananda and based upon his complaint a criminal law was set into motion and an FIR has been registered as per Ex-P14 by PW-12-Ramalingaiah who is a Head Constable has subscribed his signature on Ex-P1(c) PW-11-Ramachandraiah who is an ASI has subscribed his signature on Ex-P1(b) and PW-14-Dharmegowda who is an Investigating Officer has done investigation and laid chargesheet against accused- 8- During course of investigation PW-14 being an Investigating Officer has drawn spot mahazar as per Ex-P3 in presence of PWs-2 and 7 being panch witnesses- Ex-P13 is seizure mahazar which has been drawn by PW-14 being an Investigating Officer in presence of PWs-8 and 10- However PW-2-Hemaraju who turned hostile even though he is a mahazar witness and has subscribed his signature on Ex-P3(a) and PW-8-Lakshmikantha who is a panch witness and in his presence seizure mahazar at Ex-P13 has been drawn by PW-14- Merely because they have turned hostile with aforesaid mahazar at Exs-P3 and P13 their evidence did not come in way of prosecution for consideration- PW-1-Venkatesha who is an injured witness has given a statement at Ex-P1- Even though it is a supplementary statement Ex-P2-complaint has been lodged by his father PW-9-Ramananda and he has narrated as to how incident had taken place and as to how accused Nos-1 to 3 said to have been assaulted on him and caused injuries as reflected in wound certificate at Ex-P12 and so also injuries were inflicted on him and reviews are in MLC extract at Ex-P15 and same has been maintained by PW-13-Dr-Sumathi S- who initially treated injured at Kunigal Government Hospital- These are all material evidence on part of prosecution- However trial Court did not appreciate evidence in a proper perspective manner- Therefore in this appeal requires re-appreciation of evidence and re-visit of material documents that too Ex-P3-spot mahazar and Ex-P13-seizure mahazar relating to seizure of M-O-1-knife and M-Os-2 and 3 – sticks (2 in Nos-) M-O-4-blood stained white colour shirt alleging that there is blood stained on cloth and evidence of PWs-1 and 9 and inclusive of evidence of PW-11 who is an ASI PW-12-Head Constable who registered an FIR PW-13-Doctor who treated injured initially PW-14-Investigating Officer mahazar and Ex-P13-seizure mahazar relating to seizure of M-O-1-knife and M-Os-2 and 3 – sticks (2 in Nos-) M-O-4-blood stained white colour shirt alleging that there is blood stained on cloth and evidence of PWs-1 and 9 and inclusive of evidence of PW-11 who is an ASI PW-12-Head Constable who registered an FIR PW-13-Doctor who treated injured initially PW-14-Investigating Officer who conducted entire investigation and laid chargehseet against accused- 9- Ex-P12 is wound certificate issued by PW-6 who is Doctor who has given treatment to injured- injuries were inflicted on injured by using M-O-1-knife M-Os-2 and 3-sticks (2 in numbers)- Though assault made by accused Nos-1 to 3 and even accused No-4 who instigated aforesaid co-accused for commission of an offence all accused were attempted to take away life of PW-1-Venkatesha who is injured- These are contentions urged by learned High Court Government Pleader for State seeking for intervention in this appeal relating to judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court as trial Court misdirected and misinterpreted evidence of PWs-9 and official witnesses PWs-12 13 and 14- On all these premises learned High Court Government Pleader for State seeks to consider grounds urged in this appeal and to intervene impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by trail Court and consequently convict accused for offences which are leveled against them- 10- Sri C-R-Gopalaswamy learned counsel has countered arguments advanced by learned High Court Government Pleader for State by contending that incident was taken place on 19-07-2014 at about 6-30 p-m- and alleging that all accused with an intention to take away life of CW-1-Venkatesha who is subjected to examine as PW-1 as there was a quarrel between complainant and accused persons and also alleging that accused persons used material objects M-O-1 which is neither a chopper nor a knife and M-Os-2 and 3 – sticks (2 in numbers) and due to altercation took between complainant and accused alleged incident was taken place but Ex-P-1 is statement given by CW-1 who is an injured but complaint at Ex-P2 has been forwarded through his father PW-9-Ramananda and based upon complaint a criminal law was set into motion by registering an FIR as per Ex-P14- There shall be some due deliberation discussion and consultation as incident was taken place on 19-07-2014 consequently criminal law was set into motion by registering an FIR as per Ex-P14 on 20-07-2014- Medical Officer-PW-13-Dr-Sumathi S- who had initially treated injured-PW-1 father PW-9-Ramananda and based upon complaint a criminal law was set into motion by registering an FIR as per Ex-P14- There shall be some due deliberation discussion and consultation as incident was taken place on 19-07-2014 consequently criminal law was set into motion by registering an FIR as per Ex-P14 on 20-07-2014- Medical Officer-PW-13-Dr-Sumathi S- who had initially treated injured-PW-1 on 20-07-2014- She has specifically stated in her evidence that injured was brought before her with history of assault by more persons who are said to be arraigned as accused- Investigating Officer-PW-14 laid chargesheet against accused and conducted spot mahazar at Ex-P3 in presence of PWs-2 and 7 and also recorded statement of witnesses and apprehending accused produced them before Court having a jurisdiction- At a cursory glance of evidence of PW1-Venkatesha who is an injured and also evidence of PW-9 –Ramananda who is none other than father of injured PW-9 had given a complaint as per Ex-P2 before Head Constable-Ramalingaiah who is subjected to examine as PW-12 and he has subscribed his signature on Ex-P1(c)- Even PW-11-Ramachandraiah who is an ASI has subscribed his signature on Ex-P1(b)- However evidence of PWs-1 and 9 has been facilitated by prosecution in order to prove guilt of accused but PW-2 who is a panch witness has been secured by PW-14 and in his presence Ex-P3-spot mahazar has been drawn but PW-2 has been turned hostile and similarly PW-8 who is a panch witness has been secured to act as panchas and has subscribed his signature on Ex-P13(a)- seizure mahazar at Ex-P13 has been drawn by PW-14 being an I-O- who laid chargesheet against accused but PWs-2 and 8 did not support case of prosecution relating to fulcrum of mahazar- Mahazars have been drawn by PW-14 which are at Ex-P3-spot mahazar and Ex-P13–seizure mahazar- Therefore there is some contradictory and also inconsistency in evidence of PW-14 and so also evidence of PWs-2 7 8 and 10- evidence has been scrutinised by trial Court and inclusive of evidence of PW-6-Dr-Shashidhara who subjected to given treatment to injured-PW-1 and issued wound certificate Ex-P12- Doctor has opined in wound certificate that injury Nos-1 and 2 are simple in nature and injury No-3 is grievous in nature and he has sustained abrasion over middle 1/3rd ulnar aspect of left forearm lacerated wound over right side parietal region measuring about 4 x 1 cms and tenderness over middle treatment to injured-PW-1 and issued wound certificate Ex-P12- Doctor has opined in wound certificate that injury Nos-1 and 2 are simple in nature and injury No-3 is grievous in nature and he has sustained abrasion over middle 1/3rd ulnar aspect of left forearm lacerated wound over right side parietal region measuring about 4 x 1 cms and tenderness over middle 1/3rd of forearm (left)- Mere issuance of wound certificate-Ex-P6 by Doctor who subjected to give treatment to PW-1-Venkatesh it cannot be held that aforesaid injuries have been inflicted over injured by accused Nos-1 to 3 by means of M-O-1-knife and also means of M-Os-2 and 3 sticks (two in numbers) alleged to have been used by accused and so also instigation made by accused No-4 to co-accused Nos-1 to 3 intentionally for eliminating injured PW-1-Venkatesh- 11- It is further contended that there shall be some political rivalry in between PW-1-Venkatesh and also accused Nos-1 to 4- allegations has been narrated in complaint at Ex-P2 but same has been forwarded by PW-1-Venkatesh through his father PW-9-Ramananda and that itself indicates that there shall be some due deliberation consultation and discussion relating to filing of a complaint and also initiation of criminal law was set into motion against accused alleging that they have caused injuries to injured- 12- prosecution even though subjected to examine in all PWs-1 to 14 but has mainly relied upon evidence of PW-1-Venkatesha who is an injured and PW-9-Ramananda who is father of injured and PW-9-Ramananda has filed complaint at Ex-P2 whereby that complaint has been forwarded by Venkatesha but PW-9 did not see incident as to how it was occurred and as to how accused alleged to have been assaulted injured-PW-1-Venkatesha by using M-O-1 neither a chopper nor a knife whereas grounds urged in this appeal that accused in order to take away life of PW-1-Venkatesha have picked up a quarrel and used M-O-1-knife and same has been marked but there shall be some variations relating to weapons neither knife nor chopper and injury has been made either through chopper or through knife and knife has been marked as M-O-1 on part of prosecution- Though prosecution has been subjected to examine several witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 but PWs-11 to 14 being official witnesses and more so it is found that their evidence has been inconsistency with evidence of PWs-1 and 9 relating to statement of Ex-P1 either through chopper or through knife and knife has been marked as M-O-1 on part of prosecution- Though prosecution has been subjected to examine several witnesses as PWs-1 to 14 but PWs-11 to 14 being official witnesses and more so it is found that their evidence has been inconsistency with evidence of PWs-1 and 9 relating to statement of Ex-P1 and this statement has been given by injured even after criminal law was set into motion by registering an FIR as per Ex-P14 but genesis of complaint at Ex-P2 and more so supplementary statement at Ex-P1 given by PW-1-Venkatesha is hit by Section 161 of Cr-P-C- supplementary statement which is set into trial is even in conformity with averments made in complaint or it would have been given later on with deliberation discussion and consultation and same cannot be ruled out but there is no credit worthy for consideration- Therefore under this appeal dwelling in detail does not arise as to contentions made by learned counsel relating to accused where causing injuries to injured-PW-1-Venkatesh and also wound certificate-Ex-P12 issued by PW-6 who has treated injured- PW-6 has stated in his evidence that he was working as a Doctor in KIMS Hospital Bengaluru and he has given treatment to injured-PW-1-Venkatesha on 20-07-2014 and injured was brought to Hospital at about 1-00 a-m- in night hours- Accordingly he was subjected to give treatment to him with an history of assault- In wound certificate at Ex-P12 it is stated that injured has sustained abrasion over left forearm lacerated wound over right side parietal region and tenderness over middle 1/3rd of forearm (left)- However all eye witnesses have been turned hostile and all material witnesses on part of prosecution have also turned hostile relating to averments made at Ex-P2 and so also supplementary statement at Ex-P1- Therefore trial Court by analyzing evidence and close scrutiny of evidence has rightly come to conclusion that though witnesses of PWs-1 to 14 have been subjected to examine eye witnesses and other material witnesses have turned hostile and they did not withstand statement given by them- However prosecution has facilitated evidence by examining PW-1-Venkatesha who is injured and also his father PW-9-Ramananda who lodged complaint as per Ex-P2 but held that prosecution has failed to prove charges leveled against accused with beyond all reasonable doubt- Therefore intervention cannot be made under this appeal by considering grounds urged and they did not withstand statement given by them- However prosecution has facilitated evidence by examining PW-1-Venkatesha who is injured and also his father PW-9-Ramananda who lodged complaint as per Ex-P2 but held that prosecution has failed to prove charges leveled against accused with beyond all reasonable doubt- Therefore intervention cannot be made under this appeal by considering grounds urged and also no ingredients has been proved or even elicited by prosecution to prove guilt of accused- On all these premises learned counsel for respondents/accused seeks for dismissal of this appeal being devoid of merits- 13- Whereas learned High Court Government Pleader for State relied upon evidence of PWs-1 and 9 and also Ex-P1-supplementary statement of PW-1-Venkatesha- PW-9-Ramananda filed a complaint at Ex-P2 and based on which a criminal law was set into motion by registering an FIR as per Ex-P14- It is relevant to refer to Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 with regard to “proved” fact and “disproved” fact- proved fact when after considering matters before it Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under circumstances of particular case to act upon supposition that it exists whereas disproved fact is a fact when after considering matters before it Court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought under circumstances of particular case to act upon supposition that it does not exist- concept of proved and disproved even though is on part of prosecution it has to be established to prove guilt of accused and similarly greater responsibility on side of defence side is also to be put in defence theory that minor contradictions and even inconsistency in testimony of any injured eye witness does not make untrustworthy and unreliable witness- However in instant case PW-1-Venkatesha who is none other than injured and he has given a supplementary statement at Ex-P1 and he has forwarded a complaint-Ex-P2 through his father PW-9-Ramananda who had been subjected to examine and also he has given evidence relating to proving guilt of accused before Court and accused are facing up of a trial for offences punishable under Sections 307 324 and 504 inclusive of Sections 506-B of IPC- PWs-1 to 14 have been subjected to examine on part of prosecution witnesses to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt- However domain is he has given evidence relating to proving guilt of accused before Court and accused are facing up of a trial for offences punishable under Sections 307 324 and 504 inclusive of Sections 506-B of IPC- PWs-1 to 14 have been subjected to examine on part of prosecution witnesses to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt- However domain is vested with trial Court for appreciation of evidence keeping in view of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and similarly Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and number of particular witnesses have been entered into box on part of prosecution to disclose proved fact but merit of statement is important in a criminal justice delivery system but in instant case there is no worthwhile evidence for consideration- 14- It is a well known principle of law that reliance can be placed on solitary statement of a witness- statement made by person being injured or even witness it has to be considered as true and even correct version of case of prosecution- PW-13-Doctor who had initially treated injured at Government Hospital Kunigal and on advice of PW-13-Doctor he has been shifted to NIMHANS Bengaluru and took treatment and subsequently he was shifted to KIMS Hospital for further treatment wherein PW-6-Doctor has treated injured and has issued wound certificate as per Ex-P12 and it is found from wound certificate that injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature which are abrasion over left forearm lacerated wound over right side parietal region and tenderness over middle 1/3rd of fore arm (left) part of his body- From all these injuries injured fell on ground and if he has come into contact with rough surface that injuries might have been inflicted and this contention made by learned counsel in this appeal cannot be ruled out- This contention as made by learned counsel for respondents/accused and more so in instant case PWs-1 and 9 are material witnesses and PW-9 who is father of injured PW-1 and got marked document at Ex-P2-complaint and given that complaint to Police having jurisdiction and based on complaint a criminal law was set into motion and thereafter PW-14-Investigating Officer has taken up case for investigation and followed requisite provisions of Section 173(2) of Cr-PC- and accordingly recorded statement of witnesses and also drew spot mahazar as per Ex-P3 and so also seizure mahazar at Ex-P13- During course conducting seizure complaint to Police having jurisdiction and based on complaint a criminal law was set into motion and thereafter PW-14-Investigating Officer has taken up case for investigation and followed requisite provisions of Section 173(2) of Cr-PC- and accordingly recorded statement of witnesses and also drew spot mahazar as per Ex-P3 and so also seizure mahazar at Ex-P13- During course conducting seizure mahazar at Ex-P13 material objects i-e- M-O-1-knife and M-Os-2 and 3-sticks (two in numbers) and M-O-4-blood stained white colour shirt have been seized in presence of panch witness- PWs-3 to 10 have been secured to act as panch witnesses- PW-8-panch witness did not support to fulcrum of facts of PW-13 and his evidence is contrary to evidence of PW-14-Investigating Officer- PW-14 has done entire investigation and laid chargsheet against accused on production of M-Os-1 to 4- M-O-4-blood stained white colour shirt of injured-PW-1 was subjected to examine by FSL Authority- FSL authority-Malathi D- has chemically examined M-Os-1 to 4 and issued FSL report at Ex-P10- Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PW-6 being a Doctor who subjected to examine injured-PW-1-Venkatesha and issued wound certificate at Ex-P12 and even at a close scrutiny of evidence of PWs-1 and 9 on part of prosecution it appears that there shall be some contradictory evidence and there is no consistent corroborative and positive evidence which probablised that accused have caused injuries to injured as per wound certificate at Ex-P12 issued by Doctor-PW-6 who has been subjected to examine injured- In instant case several witnesses have been subjected to examine on parts of prosecution for venturing to prove guilt of accused- However ingredients of Section 324 of IPC that accused voluntarily causes hurt to any other person and that accused did so intentionally or with knowledge that which will cause brutal pain or infirmity to victim that such hurt is caused by some sort of an instrument- These ingredients of Section 324 of IPC are required to be established to prove guilt of accused by prosecution without giving any clouds of doubt- ingredients of Section 504 of IPC are that accused intentionally insults someone and accused thereby intended to give him a provocation and due to that provocation any kind of an incident may occur was erected and accused knew that it was provocation which would cause that person to commit guilt of breach or to commit any other offence- Therefore ingredients of of Section 504 of IPC are that accused intentionally insults someone and accused thereby intended to give him a provocation and due to that provocation any kind of an incident may occur was erected and accused knew that it was provocation which would cause that person to commit guilt of breach or to commit any other offence- Therefore ingredients of Section 504 of IPC is a domain vested with prosecuting agency to establish guilt of accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence which would arrive at just and proper conclusion that accused have committed alleged offences and probablised for causing some injuries inflicted on injured but there is no clinching evidence on prosecution side for consideration as Court opined- 15- ingredients under Section 114 of IPC are required to be established by prosecution that act was actually committed in pursuance of abetement by accused- Section 34 of IPC empowers that whether there is common intention to commit offence but in instant case it is alleged that there was some provocation by accused No-4 to co-accused Nos-1 to 3 and due to his provocation as to take away life of injured-PW-1-Venkatesha accused Nos-1 to 3 alleged to have assaulted injured with means of M-Os-2 and 3-sticks (two in numbers) and M-O-1-knife alleged to have used by accused and due to assault made by accused persons injured sustained injuries as reflected in Ex-P12-wound certificate issued by Doctor- However it leads to provocation as well as abetement as narrated even in complaint- However case of prosecution did not forthcoming with worthwhile evidence- same has been observed by trial Court for arrival of proper conclusion whereby it is held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused- In instant case it requires commanding of ingredients relating to Section 506 of IPC which includes Parts-A and B- It is based upon ingredients under Section 503 of IPC relating to commission of offence by accused persons who arraigned as accused in chargesheet accused threatened/ intimidated someone with injuries: i) to his person reputation or property; or ii) to person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested; iii) with an intent to cause alarm to that person or iv) he did so to call victim to perform any act which he was not bound legally; 16- above said ingredients are important and domain vested with prosecution Agency to prove by facilitating worthwhile evidence- If ii) to person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested; iii) with an intent to cause alarm to that person or iv) he did so to call victim to perform any act which he was not bound legally; 16- above said ingredients are important and domain vested with prosecution Agency to prove by facilitating worthwhile evidence- If prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence certainly trial Court has to appreciate evidence keeping in view of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act- In instant case prosecution even though mainly relied upon evidence of PWs-1 and 9 relating to supplementary statement at Ex-P1 and even complaint at Ex-P2 inclusive of evidence of PW-14 who being Investigating Officer who laid chargesheet against accused by drawing spot mahazar as per Ex-P3 and so also at Ex-P13 for having seized M-Os-1 to 4 at a cursory glance of aforesaid evidence which are facilitated by prosecution are found inconsistency and also contradiction to each other and more so prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of an accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence beyond all reasonable doubt- At outset on close scrutiny of evidence of PW-1 who is an injured has narrated about assault made by accused in his complaint-Ex-P2- However his evidence on part of prosecution reveals that initially he was immediately taken to Kunigal Government Hospital from scene of crime of incident and PW-9-Ramananda who is none other than his father and thereafter injured was shifted to KIMS Hospital in ambulance in order to provide better treatment to save his life- At a cursory glance of evidence of PW-1-Venkatesh and PW-9-Ramananda who is none other than father of injured and also material witnesses on part of prosecution but their evidence are not corroborating to each other and there shall be some clouds of doubt and when clouds of doubt are arisen on part of prosecution it is a settled position of law that doubt is always beheld in favour of accused alone- Accordingly trial Court has rightly come to conclusion by scrutinising evidence of PWs-1 and 9 and coupled with evidence of PWs-2 to 4 even though these witnesses are material witnesses and also termed as eye witnesses strangely PWs-2 to 4 have been turned hostile on their own statement and also not supported fulcrum of Ex-P3-spot mahazar and also Ex-P13-seizure mahazar and even PWs-1 and 9 have been supporting case of prosecution of PWs-1 and 9 and coupled with evidence of PWs-2 to 4 even though these witnesses are material witnesses and also termed as eye witnesses strangely PWs-2 to 4 have been turned hostile on their own statement and also not supported fulcrum of Ex-P3-spot mahazar and also Ex-P13-seizure mahazar and even PWs-1 and 9 have been supporting case of prosecution but their evidence did not absolutely supported case of prosecution and also other material witnesses on part of prosecution but turned hostile- PW-1-Venkatesha who is an injured and was subjected to medically examine initially by PW-13-Dr-Sumathi at Kunigal Government Hospital and subsequently shifted him to KIMS Hospital Bengaluru wherein treatment was provided to him and issued wound certificate at Ex-P12- However Ex-P19 discloses that PW-1 has consumed alcohol at time of incident- Therefore trial Court has assigned reasons that there shall be some political rivalry in between two groups of complainant and accused and also there shall be some civil dispute emerged in between them and it would termed into criminal in nature- Even taken into consideration of this aspect prosecution did not establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and insofar as PW-1-Venkatesha-who has sustained injuries alleged to have been inflicted by accused as indicated in Ex-P12 but prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence to prove guilt of accused whereas quality of evidence which is an important aspect on part of prosecution for consideration- It is quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which requires to be judged by Court of law to give more credence on statement of provability of witnesses- witness does not include number of witnesses but appreciation of quality of evidence which is an important aspect and also for arrival of proper conclusion- principles which should be adhered to that evidence must be weighed and not counted- evidence is a ring to truth whether it is cogent credible and trustworthy or otherwise in accordance with relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witnesses rather than multiplicity or plurality of witnesses- It is a quality and not quantity which determines adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872- In instant case though prosecution has been subjected to several witnesses which are examined as PWs-1 to 14 and several documents and also mainly relied on evidence of PW-1-Venkatesha but than multiplicity or plurality of witnesses- It is a quality and not quantity which determines adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872- In instant case though prosecution has been subjected to several witnesses which are examined as PWs-1 to 14 and several documents and also mainly relied on evidence of PW-1-Venkatesha but prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence- Therefore in this appeal Court are of opinion that grounds urged in this appeal challenging judgment of acquittal do not hold any substance and it cannot arise for intervention- Consequently appeal deserves to be rejected- In view of aforesaid reason Court proceed to pass following: ORDER i) Appeal preferred by appellant/State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr-P-C- is hereby rejected- Consequently judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court in SC-No-76/2020 dated 30-03-2020 is hereby confirmed; ii) If any bail bond is executed by respondents/accused same shall stand cancelled-