JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.5046/2013 dated 25.11.2015, acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 324, 307, 114, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860. This appeal is filed seeking to consider the grounds urged and consequently set aside the acquittal judgment and to convict the accused for the offences leveled against the accused persons. 2. Heard the learned HCGP for the State Shri Rahul Rai K and learned counsel Shri M. Sharass Chandra for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 who are present before court physically. Perused the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.5046/2013 consisting the evidence of PW-1 to PW-14 and so also the documents at Exhibits P1 to P23 inclusive of MO-1 to MO-7 and so also the exhibited documents on the part of the accused as D1 to D11. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under. It transpires from the case of the prosecution that one Shashi W/o. C.S. Girish launched criminal prosecution against the accused by filing a complaint at Exhibit P1 and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering a case in Cr.No.158/2012 at Arakere P.S. on recording an FIR as per Exhibit P13. In her complaint, she has stated that in Sy.No.73 consisting of 7 guntas of land situated in the limits of Doddaharohalli village, which stands in the name of her father-in-law namely Sannegowda, already there was some dispute with regard to the said land between her father-in-law Sannegowda and his elder brother Ballarygowda and so also his sons, and that there was a quarrel ensued in between them. As on 27.08.2012 at around 7.00 a.m. complainant who is arraigned as PW-1 namely Shashi and her husband Girisha and also her father-in-law Sannegowda had been to the aforesaid landed property situated in the limits of Doddaharohalli village and they were engaged in their work in the landed property. On that day at around 9.30 a.m. when they were engaged in their work, Devegowda @ Ballarygowda and also his sons Kempegowda, Jayaramu, Ballarygowda’s wife Devamma, Lakshmi, Asha, Usha and Ninge Gowda by forming an unlawful assembly, had proceeded to the land of Sy.No.73. On that day at around 9.30 a.m. when they were engaged in their work, Devegowda @ Ballarygowda and also his sons Kempegowda, Jayaramu, Ballarygowda’s wife Devamma, Lakshmi, Asha, Usha and Ninge Gowda by forming an unlawful assembly, had proceeded to the land of Sy.No.73. On seeing the complainant and her husband namely Girisha C.S., the accused persons stated above who were unlawfully assembled, had committed criminal trespass into the aforesaid landed property and assaulted her husband namely C.S. Girisha on the left leg knee part with a handle of showel / spade. Due to the assault made by the accused persons, the said Girisha sat on the ground itself. At that time, one Jayaramu who is arraigned as Accused No.2 is also alleged to have assaulted Girisha on the head part with means of long. At the time of the incident, Girisha who put his left hand in order to rescue from the hit made by the accused. As he turned away his head, he had sustained injuries on his left shoulder and he sustained cut injury. When Jayaramu again hit with the long, Girisha sustained injury on his left hand. In the meanwhile of the altercation as narrated in the complaint, the accused Devamma and Lakshmamma had also provoked the other accused to finish the complainant’s husband C.S. Girisha. It is stated that Asha and Usha had abused the complainant’s husband C.S. Girisha in filthy language. Due to provocation by Jayamma and Lakshmamma, Kempegowda and Jayaramu had participated with other accused to commit the alleged offences. Due to screaming made by the complainant, PW-1 / Sashi and Sannegowda, the persons who were working nearby being neighbourers of the neighbouring land came to the scene of crime namely Satisha, Anil Kumar, Prakash and one Teju and they have quelled the incident. At that time, the aforesaid persons had threatened to take away the life of the complainant PW-1 Shashi and also threatened her husband C.S. Girisha. Subsequent to the incident, in terms of the assault made by the accused persons on the injured C.S. Girisha, accused had left the weapons alleged to be used by them at the said place itself. Due to the assault made by the accused, complainant’s husband C.S. Girisha sustained injuries and was shifted to Mandya District Hospital by securing a 108 Ambulance whereby he took treatment. Due to the assault made by the accused, complainant’s husband C.S. Girisha sustained injuries and was shifted to Mandya District Hospital by securing a 108 Ambulance whereby he took treatment. On 27.08.2012, complaint at Exhibit P1 was lodged by her and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case and also by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P13 for the offences reflected in the FIR. 4. Subsequent to registration of the crime and criminal law being set into motion by recording the FIR, the case was taken up for investigation by the I.O. and he investigated the entire case and laid a charge-sheet against the accused before the Committal Court. Subsequent to laying of the charge-sheet by the I.O., the Committal Court had passed an order under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. by following the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Subsequent to committing the case by passing a committal order by the Trial Court to the Sessions Court for trial, the case in S.C.No.5046/2013 was assigned and thereafter accused were secured to face trial. Accordingly, accused persons had engaged the services of a counsel to proceed with the case whereby they were facing trial. Subsequently, the Trial Court heard on charge by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the Defence counsel for the accused on prima facie materials which found place in the record. The Trial Court thereafter framed the charge against the accused whereby accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused was recorded separately. Subsequent to framing of the charge by the Trial Court, the prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to examination in all PW-1 to PW-14 and also got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P23 and materials which were secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation have been got marked as MO-1 to MO-7. Even on the part of the defence side, Exhibits D1 to D11 were also got marked. 6. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for recording the incriminating statements appearing against them, whereby the accused had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Even on the part of the defence side, Exhibits D1 to D11 were also got marked. 6. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for recording the incriminating statements appearing against them, whereby the accused had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Subsequent to recording the incriminating statements by the Trial Court, the accused were called upon to enter into defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C., but the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. 7. Subsequent to completion of the entire case of the prosecution, the Trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also the counter arguments advanced by the defence counsel for the accused, on analyzing the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 relating to the complaint at Exhibit P1 and so also the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P6 relating to PW-2 Girisha and so also the spot mahazar at Exhibit P2 inclusive of the MLC register at Exhibit P7 and seizure panchanama at Exhibit P11 and FSL report at Exhibit P12 inclusive of the statements of the witnesses in respect of Exhibit P16 and P17 and blood group report at Exhibit P18 and even on close scrutiny of the evidence on the part of the prosecution inclusive of the cross-examination portion of PW-1 and PW-2, and the vital witnesses on the part of the prosecution and more so the Trial Court being convinced with the evidence, held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, presence and also the role made by each one of the accused and consequently benefit of doubt has been extended and acquittal judgment has been rendered by the Trial Court. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds. 8. Learned HCGP for the State in this appeal has taken us through the evidence of PW-2 / Girisha who is an injured and more so, he had sustained injuries due to the assault made by the accused persons, which is reflected in the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P6 issued by the Doctor and whereby given treatment to him and also the injured PW-2 was shifted to District Government Hospital, Mandya, through a 108 ambulance. However, PW-2 has stated in his evidence that he being the injured he had explained the role made by each one of the accused. The evidence of PW-2 is clearly corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses such as PW-1 namely Shashi who is none other than the wife of the injured / PW-2 and also corroborated with the evidence of PW-6 being the Doctor and PW-14 who treated the injured. To the fullest extent, they have supported the case of the prosecution relating to the role made by each one of the accused as regards the averments made in the complaint at Exhibit P1. But the Trial Court has misdirected the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also mis-interpreted the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inclusive of the medical evidence relating to the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P6. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires to re-appreciate the evidence and also re-visit the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 9. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State is by referring to the evidence of PW-7 who is an independent witness and this witness had also supported the case of the prosecution. In spite of the evidence of PW-7 which is corroborated with the evidence of PW-2 injured and also further corroborated with the evidence of PW-1, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Based upon PW-1’s complaint at Exhibit P1, criminal law was set into motion and the injuries were inflicted on PW-2 by the accused persons and more so, they have caused the injuries as reflected at Exhibit P6. Accused persons not only inflicted injuries over PW-2 but also they have abused him in filthy language and had made attempt to take away his life by twisting his left hand shoulder and made him to fall on the ground and assaulted him with means of MO-6 / long and MO-7 / spade. As a result of that, PW-2 had sustained injuries as reflected at Exhibit P6 of the Wound Certificate issued by the Doctor. Whereas the Trial Court had misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence on the part of the prosecution and failed to consider the evidence of PW-2/injured and also failed to consider the evidence of PW-6 and PW-14 being the Doctor whereby treated the injured PW-2 and issued the Wound Certificate and also MLC report. Whereas the Trial Court had misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence on the part of the prosecution and failed to consider the evidence of PW-2/injured and also failed to consider the evidence of PW-6 and PW-14 being the Doctor whereby treated the injured PW-2 and issued the Wound Certificate and also MLC report. Therefore, it requires in this appeal for revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal. If not, it would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. On all these premise, learned HCGP for the State submits vehemently and also seeking consideration of the grounds urged in this appeal and to set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 324, 307, 114, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. 10. Learned counsel Shri M. Sharass Chandra for the respondent / accused has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 in respect of Exhibit P1 of the complaint made by her and based upon the same, criminal law was set into motion. But the spot mahazar at Exhibit P2 makes it clear that the scene of offence is in the land bearing Sy.No.73. Exhibit P1 is the complaint. Criminal law was set into motion by alleging that the accused persons had trespassed into the aforesaid landed properties and committed offences as alleged in her complaint at Exhibit P1. But Exhibit P2 is the spot mahazar which makes it clear that the scene of offence is situated in 7 guntas of land of Sy.No.73 of Doddaharohalli village. But the blood stained mud and also un-bloodstained mud is said to have been seized by the I.O. by drawing the mahazar and the same has been seized even in the presence of panch witnesses. But PW-1 and PW-2 have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. But in their cross-examination, it reveals that the injured PW-2 / C.S. Girisha who is none other than the husband of PW-1 Shashi and her husband PW-2 were allowed to carry the fodder nearby the channel and while he was climbing on the channel bund, in the meanwhile the accused persons have arrived with a group and they have proceeded on the aforesaid channel bund. However, in the meanwhile, PW-1 Shashi had also climbed in that channel bund and while he was proceeding, Accused No.1 namely Kempegowda is alleged to have assaulted with means of the handle of a spade on the knee part. This was the evidence which has been elicited by the defence during the course of cross-examination. But PW-3 to PW-5 in their cross-examination after subjecting to examination-in-chief on the part of the prosecution and even in the incisive cross-examination done, nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their evidence to corroborate with the evidence of PW-1 who is the complainant at Exhibit P1 and so also the evidence of PW-2 / injured. But the scene of crime even deposed by PW-1 and PW-2 relating to referring the scene of offences at Sy.No.73 are found to be some inconsistencies and contradictions in comparison with the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5 with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. They are vital witnesses on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of offence i.e., scene of crime at Exhibit P2 as drawn by the Investigating Agency. 11. PW-1 who is the complainant at Exhibit P1 and PW-2 who is the injured to impeach the credibility of the evidence of PW-2 and the same has been elicited during the course of the cross-examination of the vital witnesses of PW-1 and PW-2. There was a specific defence taken that there was some enmity emerged in between the family members of the accused and so also the family members of PW-1 and PW-2 and several criminal cases were also registered against PW-2 namely Girisha. There was a specific defence taken that there was some enmity emerged in between the family members of the accused and so also the family members of PW-1 and PW-2 and several criminal cases were also registered against PW-2 namely Girisha. Even in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, they have admitted in their evidence relating to civil dispute emerged in between present Accused Nos.1 to 3 and also the father of PW-2 and another person, the civil suit has been initiated and whereby produced the certified copies of the judgment in O.S.No.15/2008 marked at Exhibit D1 and even the order-sheet maintained in R.A.No.31/2012 marked at Exhibit D2 and copy of the FIR at Exhibit D3 and certified copy of the documents at Exhibits D4 and D5 inclusive of the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.728/2002 at Exhibit D6 have been produced by the counsel on the part of the accused, whereby the aforesaid civil suit was decreed in favour of Accused No.1 and Accused No.3. Against that decree made by the Civil Court in the aforesaid civil suit, CW-3 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. But the said appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution as per Exhibit D2 of the order-sheet maintained by the First Appellate Court. These are all the evidence which have been elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW-2. But more importantly, Exhibits D3 to D6 relating to criminal cases in respect of the judgment rendered and also confronted. From these documents, it is clear that PW-2 / C.S. Girisha who is none other than the injured and so also being the husband of PW-1, had committed theft of motor bike. Therefore, two criminal cases were prosecuted against him and another person also has been included in the criminal cases for offences under Section 379 of the IPC. On the complaint of one Sheela, the case has been registered for offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 against him and it had ended in acquittal as the matter was compromised between the parties. On the complaint of one Sheela, the case has been registered for offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 against him and it had ended in acquittal as the matter was compromised between the parties. However, impeaching the credibility of evidence even in the initiation of criminal prosecution by filing a complaint by PW-1 being the wife of PW-2 injured, his credibility should be taken into consideration and the same has been made an observation by the Trial Court and also consideration of the credibility of the evidence of PW-2 that the injured in respect of injuries sustained on his person as indicated at Exhibit P6 of the Wound Certificate issued by PW-6 / Doctor. 12. The second limb of arguments advanced by the learned counsel and counter to the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State by urging various grounds in this appeal seeking intervention. During the course of cross-examination, PW-1 has clearly admitted that in the house of accused persons, the remaining other family members two children aged about 4 to 5 years and two children aged 3 years of Accused Nos.5 and 6 were present. As according to the evidence of PW-1 given on 23.03.2015, as on the said date both Asha and Usha who were arraigned as accused had three year old children. Hence, at the time of the incident which occurred in the year 2012, as according to a prudent man, both Asha and Usha might have been carrying women or in their advanced stage of delivering babies. Therefore, in the circumstances, their presence in the land bearing Sy.No.73 whereby the incident had taken place is highly improbable and hence it does not probabalise the involvement of the aforesaid accused persons in the offences. 13. But according to Exhibit P6 / Wound Certificate issued by PW-6 / Doctor, history of injury is mentioned as assault around 9.30 a.m. on 27.08.2012 near the field of Jayaramu, Kempegowda and Kulla and group of 6 persons as mentioned in the history of injury inflicted. But it is the specific case of the accused persons that after arrival of PW-6 they have discussed about lodging of the complaint and by pressurizing the Doctor, the stated history was got mentioned by PW-7. However, in the cross-examination of PW-2, he being an injured, he has clearly admitted that he came to know PW-7 when he was in jail. However, in the cross-examination of PW-2, he being an injured, he has clearly admitted that he came to know PW-7 when he was in jail. But PW-7 Shankar M @ Sulthana he was in incarceration but during the cross-examination of PW-7, he has clearly admitted that he met PW-2 / C.S. Girisha who is an injured in the incarceration and he has stated that he has not given statement as per Exhibit D10. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and so also the narration made in the spot panchanama and even timings of arrival of PW-7 to the hospital and all material contradictions regarding place of occurrence, the same is seen in their evidence itself. The delay in lodging the complaint by initiation of criminal prosecution, creates a doubt relating to the theory of the prosecution regarding trustworthiness of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6. These are all the evidence on the part of the prosecution, which has been considered by the Trial Court and there is no chance of PW-12 recording the statements of the injured PW-2 at Chikkaharohalli village, which creates doubt. But PW2 was admitted to hospital from 27.08.2012 to 04.09.2012. If this narration is to be termed as true, two instances cannot simultaneously arise and become true facts. However, PW-2 has clearly admitted that he never visited the hospital with reference to his case and had given his statement before the police. He has stated that total 8 persons came as narrated there is no further investigation after recording the statement of PW-2. In Exhibit D11, the date of assault is mentioned as 28.08.2012. However, in the totality of the circumstances of the case of the prosecution and even in close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and so also the seizure as per the voluntary statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and even though the seizure mahazar has been conducted in the presence of PW-8 and PW-9, but these panch witnesses have turned around in respect of the fulcrum of the seizure mahazar but they have stated regarding presence of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and photographs as per Exhibit P9 and P10. However, on an overall presumption of the evidence of prosecution and more so to dismantle the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also elicitation in the cross-examination done by the defence counsel and even handing over MO-6 and MO-7 to the I.O. creates some doubt. When once doubt arises in the mind of the court, benefit of doubt, it would always accrue on the part of the accused alone. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused that they had caused the injuries inflicted over the person of PW-2 as reflected in the Wound Certificate at Exhibit P6. Accordingly, rendered an acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not arise to call for interference and there is no bone of contention made by the learned HCGP for the State seeking to revisit the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court. On all these premise, learned counsel for the respondent / accused seeks for dismissal of this appeal as being devoid of merits and thereby to confirm the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court. 14. It is in this context of the contentions vehemently made by the learned HCGP for the State and so also the counter made by the learned counsel for the respondents / accused, but offences under Sections 143, 147 of IPC, 1860 have been leveled against the accused. But Section 141 of the IPC in Chapter VIII relates to offences against public tranquility and more so unlawful assembly. “141. But Section 141 of the IPC in Chapter VIII relates to offences against public tranquility and more so unlawful assembly. “141. Unlawful assembly.—An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is— (First) — To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second) — To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third) — To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth) — By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth) — By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. 15. Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 relates to common object. To determine the existence of a common object, the court is required to see the circumstances in which the incident had taken place and conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly including weapons they carried or used on the spot. But in the instant case, even MO-6 and MO-7 have been got marked on the part of the prosecution. But the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 relating to narrating the incident at Exhibit P1 of the complaint runs contrary to the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5. But the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW-2 who is the injured and who is none other than the husband of PW-1 who has launched criminal prosecution against the accused by filing a complaint as per Exhibit P1. But common object may form on spur of the moment. But the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW-2 who is the injured and who is none other than the husband of PW-1 who has launched criminal prosecution against the accused by filing a complaint as per Exhibit P1. But common object may form on spur of the moment. Prior concert in the sense of meeting of unlawful assembly members even though it is not necessary, but it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence and also establishing the ingredients of Section 141 which is a definition section of common object relating to unlawful assembly. 146. Rioting.—Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. While Section 146 IPC defines as to what is rioting, Section 147 IPC relates to punishment for rioting. Being a member of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit an offence and must have a nexus between the common object and offences as stated in the theory of the prosecution in terms of charge-sheet laid against the accused. But there must be some nexus between common object and also offences committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish a common object, every member of the assembly will be liable for the same offence. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ALLAUDDIN MIAN vs. STATE OF BIHAR ( AIR 1989 SC 1456 ). 16. In the instant case, Accused Nos.1 to 7 who were facing trial before the Trial Court for offences under Section 143 IPC which is a punishment clause relating to unlawful assembly. But unlawful assembly definition should be read together in respect of Section 141 and 142. Then only a conclusion can be arrived as to what is punishment clause under Section 143 IPC. Similarly, Section 146 rioting, section 147 punishment clause of rioting. However, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. But in the instant case, PW-2 being the injured person who is none other than the husband of PW-1 and who has filed a complaint at Exhibit P1. Similarly, Section 146 rioting, section 147 punishment clause of rioting. However, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. But in the instant case, PW-2 being the injured person who is none other than the husband of PW-1 and who has filed a complaint at Exhibit P1. But criminal law was set into motion based upon her complaint. But their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5. But PW-3 to PW-5 being eye-witnesses on the part of the prosecution, they have given statements before the I.O. during the course of investigation. But they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned around their statements, which is marked as Exhibits D7 to D10. However, at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 in respect of Exhibit P1 of the complaint and in respect of the evidence of PW-2 / injured and this injured is alleged to have sustained injuries from the accused persons with means of MO-6 and MO-7. MO-6 is long and MO-7 is spade / pickaxe alleged to have been used by the accused persons. Injuries are indicated at Exhibit P6 of the Wound Certificate. Accused Nos.1 to 7 had unlawfully assembled with a common object to assault PW-2 whereby he was present in the land bearing Sy.No.73. Prosecution has not facilitated worthwhile evidence relating to the ingredients of each of the offences relating to unlawful assembly by accused persons with an intention to commit an offence and also taking away the life of PW-2 / Girisha. 17. PW-2 has given evidence on the part of the prosecution that he was involved in an offence of Section 379 along with other accused and also involved in an offence of Section 354 and criminal prosecution has been initiated by filing a complaint by one Sheela. But impeaching evidence has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of the vital witnesses of PW-1 and PW-2, and the same has been seen in the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. But impeaching evidence has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of the vital witnesses of PW-1 and PW-2, and the same has been seen in the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. More so, entire case even though it has been re-appreciated and re-visited the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court, but the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence and nexus between common object and the offences committed as alleged by the prosecution in respect of which the charge-sheet has been laid by the Investigating Agency. 18. Section 149 of the IPC relates to every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object. In this provision, it indicates as every member of an unlawful assembly with common object to commit an offence. But Section 149 does not create a separate offence but only declares a vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for acts done in a common object. It must be prior concert and even it must be a prior meeting among all the members to be termed as an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit an offence. In order to attract Section 149 of the IPC, it must be shown that incriminating act was done to accomplish a common object of unlawful assembly. It must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of a common object. If members of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being committed in prosecution of a common object, then they would be liable for the same under Section 149. But even on close reading of the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC, 1860, every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed as in prosecution of a common object, the ingredients must be established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. If there are no ingredients constituted and there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution forthcoming for consideration of the common object of every member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 and rest of the offences even though have been leveled against the accused, would deviate in respect of the other offences. If there are no ingredients constituted and there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution forthcoming for consideration of the common object of every member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 and rest of the offences even though have been leveled against the accused, would deviate in respect of the other offences. But in the instant case, Section 324 of the IPC and even Section 307 of the IPC is a major offence. In those offences, the accused have made attempt to take away the life of the person i.e., the injured person. Section 114 of the IPC, 1860 relates to some provocation or in terms of instigation. Section 504 of the IPC it would cause some public peace and tranquility due to an incident in case alleged to be committed by the accused person. Section 506 of the IPC there are first and second parts. The second part attracts punishment more than the first part. Merely because criminal intimidation was extended, unless the ingredients of Section 506 is constituted and established by the prosecution by providing worthwhile evidence, then it is arises as diluting the offences leveled against the accused persons. 19. Whereas in the instant case, Accused Nos.1 to 7 having faced trial and are acquitted for the offences. Accused Nos.5 and 6 are Asha W/o. Kempegowda and Usha W/o. Jayaramu. But PW-1 who is the complainant at Exhibit P1 has clearly admitted that in the house of the accused persons, the remaining other family members are 4 to 5 years two children and three years two children and they are the children of accused Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, the role of these accused Nos.5 and 6 and also these accused having participated with other accused as alleged, in respect of the offences taken place on 27.08.2012, at around 9.30 a.m. in the scene of crime situated in Sy.No.73 of the land, is highly improbably. Hence, it clearly reveals that there are clouds of doubts in the theory put forth by the prosecution. However, under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Insofar as proving and so also dis-proving and also not-proved, it is in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Insofar as proving and so also dis-proving and also not-proved, it is in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But it is the duty cast upon the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Similarly, the domain is vested with the Trial Court for appreciation of the entire evidence on the part of the prosecution. But in the instant case, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. When doubt arises in the mind of the court and when clouds of doubt arises, in criminal justice delivery system, that benefit of doubt shall accrue on the accused alone. Accordingly, benefit of doubt has been accrued in this case on the part of the accused and Trial Court has rendered an acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons relating to failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused to secure conviction. 20. At a cursory glance of the grounds urged in this appeal preferred by the State and even re-appreciating the evidence on the part of the prosecution, that too vital evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inclusive of the evidence of PW-6 and PW-14 and so also the I.O. who conducted spot mahazar and seizure mahazar and seized the blood stained mud and un-bloodstained mud inclusive of the material objects of MO-6 and MO-7, but no worthwhile evidence has been elicited by the prosecution. Consequently, as regards the cardinal principles of the criminal justice delivery system and so also to prove the facts, it is the domain vested with the Trial Court and the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt mainly on the ground that the possibility of the accused having committed the offences as narrated in the theory put forth by the prosecution founds doubtful. Consequently, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt mainly on the ground that the possibility of the accused having committed the offences as narrated in the theory put forth by the prosecution founds doubtful. Therefore, in this appeal, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused and more so, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering an acquittal judgment. Consequently, the appeal does not have any bone of contention to re-visit the impugned judgment of acquittal and also to re-appreciate the evidence as sought for. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant / State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.5046/2013 dated 25.11.2015 is hereby confirmed. If any bail bond has been executed by the accused persons, the same shall stand cancelled.