JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in Sessions Case No.180/2011 dated 25/27.09.2013, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 323, 324, 307, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. This appeal is preferred by the State with a prayer set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial court and to convict the accused of the offences for which the charges levelled against them. 3. Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State and the learned counsel Sri Shivasharana Reddy for respondent Nos.2 to 6. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court in Sessions Case No.180/2011 and the records consisting of the evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and so also the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 inclusive of MOs.1 to 4. 4. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:- It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 06.06.2010 at around 9.30 p.m. when the complainant-Suresh along with his family members namely CWs.6 to 9 were all present inside the house and were watching the television. Then the accused No.1-Shekhappa and accused No.2-Ningappa alleged to have trespassed into their house and abused the complainant in a filthy language and insisted he minimizes the television sound or switch off the television. It is said that there was some exchange of words between the complainant and the accused. It is said that later accused Nos.1 and 2 have turned to their house. It is further alleged that later again the accused entered into the house of the complainant along with the co-accused No.3 -Laxman and accused No.6-Parvati by holding deadly weapons such as axe, jambiya and clubs to kill the complainant. It is further alleged that all the accused having trespassed into the house of the complainant again abused the complainant and others in filthy language and accused No.2-Ningappa allegedly assaulted the complainant with an axe on his head and caused injuries. It is alleged accused No.3-Laxman stabbed the complainant with Jambiya. It is said that CW.9-Bailappa intervened to rescue the complainant. However, accused No.3-Laxman assaulted CW.9-Bailappa on his left side shoulder and caused a bleeding injury. It is alleged accused No.3-Laxman stabbed the complainant with Jambiya. It is said that CW.9-Bailappa intervened to rescue the complainant. However, accused No.3-Laxman assaulted CW.9-Bailappa on his left side shoulder and caused a bleeding injury. Accused No. 2 Ningappa was also alleged to have assaulted CW.9-Bailappa with an axe on the backside of his head and caused some bleeding injuries. Accused No.1-Shekhappa assaulted CW.8-Laxman with a club on his left ear and also on the forehead as a result of that caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.1-Shekhappa alleged to have assaulted CW.8-Laxman with the club on his left ear and also on the forehead as a result of that caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.1 assaulted CW.6-Vijayakumar with a club on his head and also on the forehead and right shoulder. Accused No.5-Devakki alleged to dragged Savita by pulling her hair. Accused No.6 is alleged to have assaulted Savita with a club below her thigh and also on her back. On the filing of a complaint by the complainant criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.54/2010 by Devalganagapur Police Station for the offences reflected in the first information report (FIR). Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.52/2011 to the court of Civil Judge and JFMC, Afzlapur. 5. After the filing of the charge-sheet against the accused by the investigating officer and the case was committed to the court of Sessions under Sections 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by following the provision of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the case is registered as S.C.No.180/2011. 6. Sessions court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a plea of the accused was recorded separately. 7. After framing of charge against the accused the prosecution led evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and so also got marked MOs.1 to 4. After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. 7. After framing of charge against the accused the prosecution led evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and so also got marked MOs.1 to 4. After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have denied incriminating the evidence brought out by the prosecution. The accused have not led the defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. After hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the defence the trial court concluded that the prosecution did not facilitate worthy evidence to prove their case. The trial court concluded that evidence is contradictory and inconsistent to each other with the evidence of PW.4-Arunkumar and the evidence of PW.9-Sikandar and PW.3-Vijayakumar and the evidence of PW.17 Manjunath the PSI who investigated the complaint. 9. On scrutiny of the evidence on record inclusive of MOs.1 to 4 said to have been seized by PW.17 being an Investigating Officer trial court held that the guilt against the accused is not established beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court held the prosecution case is suffering inconsistency and discrepancy and there is a delay in recording the complainant and also delay in transmitting the FIR said to have been recorded by PW.16 and the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and a rendered an acquittal judgment. 10. Whereas the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State in this appeal taken us through the evidence of PW.12 who is the complainant and also injured eyewitness. It is submitted that he has specifically stated in his evidence how the alleged incident has taken place and also the specific overt act attributed against each one of the accused. However, the trial court had discarded the evidence of PW.12 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P.11 and this complaint. 11. It is urged by the appellant that the evidence of PW.12 who is an author of the complaint at Ex.P.11 and PWs.3 and 4 who are the eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution theory. However, the trial court had discarded the evidence of PW.12 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P.11 and this complaint. 11. It is urged by the appellant that the evidence of PW.12 who is an author of the complaint at Ex.P.11 and PWs.3 and 4 who are the eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution theory. Merely because PW.4 did not support the case of the prosecution; it cannot be the ground to extend the benefit of the doubt and the same will not cut at the root of the prosecution case. It is urged that said witnesses has categorically stated in their evidence relating to the role of each one of the accused and injuries caused by the accused. It is urged that injury certificates at Exs.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 support the case of the prosecution and PW.5 being a Doctor in District Hospital, Kalaburagi has given treatment to them. However, the prosecution has disbelieved their evidence highlighting minor contradictions and acquitted the accused. Hence it is prayed to allow the appeal by re appreciating the evidence. 12. The second limb of the argument has been advanced by referring to the evidence of PW.11. Though this witness has stated in his evidence relating to the incident, and though the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt against the accused relating to the motive factor and also causing for injuries on the injured merely because of some minor contradictions and minor inconsistencies trial court could not have acquitted the accused. The trial court has given more credentials to minor contradictions and also some inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution. It is urged that though Investigation Officer has not made any efforts to examine the Doctor of the Vatsalya Hospital where the injured have been taken a higher treatment same is not fatal to the case as the doctor who initially treated the injured is examined. It is also urged that evidence of PW.3– Vijayakumar and Pw.9–Sikandar would prove the guilt and prayed to convict the accused by setting aside the impugned judgment. 13. It is also urged that evidence of PW.3– Vijayakumar and Pw.9–Sikandar would prove the guilt and prayed to convict the accused by setting aside the impugned judgment. 13. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Shivasharan Reddy for respondent Nos.2 to 6 countering the argument advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State would that wound certificate issued by PW.5 who is a Medical officer who is alleged to have given treatment to the injured, does not reflect the injuries on Suresh who arrayed as PW.12, who is said to have sustained an injury i.e., lacerated wound on the right parietal region on the scalp area. He is said to have been examined in the District Hospital, Kalaburagi at around 1.25 a.m. in the night hours on 07.06.2010 and he was accompanied by one Vijayakumar who is examined as PW.3. If really that PW.12 who is an author of the complaint at Ex.P.11 had sustained some injuries on the head i.e., and if such injures were cut injuries causing bleeding, and an abrasion on the right side of his rib on account of accused No.3-Laxman piercing him with jambiya then those injuries must have necessarily found in the wound certificate. This inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution or even in the discrepancy between the oral evidence of the complainant i.e., PW.12 and the evidence of PW.5–Doctor would create serious doubt in the mind of the court. In the cross-examination, PW.12 who is an author of the compliant Ex.P.11 has specifically stated in the cross-examination that he was also sustained injuries and the cloth worn by him was stained with blood. However bloodstained clothe worn by him was not produced before the police. PW.15– Bailappa has also been subjected to examination on behalf of the prosecution and also subjected to cross-examination. Even at a cursory glance, the cross-examination of this witness reveals that there was bloodstain at the scene of the crime and he assisted the injured in sending them in an ambulance to the hospital and that their clothes were stained with the blood. PW.8–Laxman has stated that blood was oozing on the head of Suresh and his clothes were stained with the blood and also the blood-stain was found at the scene of the crime. PW.8–Laxman has stated that blood was oozing on the head of Suresh and his clothes were stained with the blood and also the blood-stain was found at the scene of the crime. How for this evidence given by the witnesses on the part of the prosecution could be accepted as a whole, relating to the theory put forth by the prosecution. In the instant case, no bloodstained clothes of any of the injured persons have been recovered by PW.11 being an Investigation Officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused and he did not whisper anything about the blood-stains. Insofar as the blood-stains found at the scene of the crime, the documentary evidence even available on the record are not credible. The spot mahazar at Ex.P.1. is drawn by PW.16 being an Investigating Officer in the presence of the panch witnesses. It reveals that there was no bloodstain at the scene of the crime. Investigating Officer who is examined as PW.17 did not take care even to collect the blood-stained clothes which the injured persons were wearing at the time of the alleged incident narrated in a complaint filed by PW.12 which is marked at Ex.P.11. Even on scrutiny of the evidence, it is evident the Investigating Officer has failed to effectively probe in the matter relating to the incident narrated in a complaint at Ex.P.11. He failed to recover blood-stained clothes if any if injured persons have sustained. He should have taken steps to recover the same to lay of a charge-sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and such other offences whereby charges were levelled against the accused persons. On scrutiny of this evidence, doubt arises in the mind of the court about the credibility of the evidence of the injured witnesses. The benefit of the doubt must always go in favour of the accused alone in the criminal justice delivery system. 14. Whereas, the trial court has given an opinion in respect of the ingredients of each one of the offences lugged against the accused relating to unlawful assembly, with a common object to commit an offence and also armed with a deadly weapon to commit the act of rioting by holding a deadly weapon. 15. PW.6 is the mahazar witness. Ex.P8 is the mahazar. PW.7 is also one of the witnesses for the recovery mahzor. 15. PW.6 is the mahazar witness. Ex.P8 is the mahazar. PW.7 is also one of the witnesses for the recovery mahzor. The evidence of these witnesses reveals that the mahazar is not proved. 16. Proof of guilt of the accused, it is domain vested with the prosecution. It should be proved by facilitating credible evidence. Evidence of all the injured witnesses must be quite consistent and also must be cogent. There should not be a material omission or even a contradiction in the theory of the prosecution. The trial court has concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and rendered a conviction judgment. Even at a cursory glance of the evidence of the injured witnesses such as evidence of PWs.8, 13, 14 and 15, it can be concluded that their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 9 even though they are the eyewitnesses on the behalf of the prosecution. 17. scrutiny of evidence reveals that on account of the previous enmity between the accused and the complainant as stated by PW.8-Laxman who has specifically stated in his cross-examination that due to dispute over the pathway that there was some enmity and some quarrel between the complainant’s group and also the group of accused. But all these aspects would make out the trial court be cautious while scrutinizing the evidence of the injured witnesses. The delay in registering the complaint and also dispatching the complaint by the investigating agency after recording an FIR is not properly explained. 18. PW.3 does not say specifically that who had secured the ambulance 108 by making a phone call and carried the injured persons to the District Hospital, Kalaburagi for providing treatment to them. Even PW.3 does not say anything in his evidence as to the aforesaid aspect of securing 108 ambulances and shifting the injured to the Government Hospital, Kalaburagi. PW.3-Vijayakumar is not consistent with the theory put forth by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence available on the record as to how the injured persons were brought to the hospital itself is not inconsistent and are contradictory. These are all the evidence that has been appreciated by the trial court. PW.3-Vijayakumar is not consistent with the theory put forth by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence available on the record as to how the injured persons were brought to the hospital itself is not inconsistent and are contradictory. These are all the evidence that has been appreciated by the trial court. Evidence of P.W.17 being an Investigating officer who has recovered axe at Hasargundagi Village, Afzalpur Taluk, at the instance of accused No.2-Ningappa and Jambya at the instance of the accused-Laxman is not credible. The name of Ningappa the accused is not found at the house though it is stated that at his instance the alleged object of the axe was seized by the Investigating Officer. A combined reading of the evidence of PW.7 in respect of Ex.P.9 and the evidence of PW.17 Investigating Officer reveal inconsistency and contradictions in the theory as put forth by the prosecution. 19. In the light of the discrepancies or even the inconsistency found on the material aspects in the evidence of the prosecution and even the evidence of the injured witnesses inclusive of the evidence of PW.12 being a complainant and in the backdrop of the record which discloses that there was previous enmity between the accused person and the injured the prosecution theory does not inspire confidence. When there was an animosity between the two families quite naturally there shall be an exaggeration in the statements for securing the conviction. But PW.12-Suresh who is a complainant and Pw.8–Laxman being the brother of the complainant and PW.13– Vijayakumar who is the blood relative, PW.12 is the uncle, PW.14-Savita who is the wife of the complainant and PW.15-Bylappa being the brother of the complainant are all the family members. The incident alleged to have been taken place during night hours. It is said to have taken place inside the house of PW.12–Suresh at around 9.30 p.m. But at a cursory glance, the evidence of the prosecution reveals serious lapses and even lacuna in the prosecution case. Thus prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthy evidence. Accordingly, the trial court extended the benefit of the doubt and rendered an acquittal judgment. Scrutiny of the evidence of PW.12, PW.13 and PW.15 also reveals inconstancy and also discrepancy. 20. No endeavour was made to secure the Doctor from Vatsalya Hospital, Kalaburagi who gave treatment to the victims. Accordingly, the trial court extended the benefit of the doubt and rendered an acquittal judgment. Scrutiny of the evidence of PW.12, PW.13 and PW.15 also reveals inconstancy and also discrepancy. 20. No endeavour was made to secure the Doctor from Vatsalya Hospital, Kalaburagi who gave treatment to the victims. All these aspects have been considered by the trial court in rendering an acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal does not arise for call for interference is the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 6 and prays for the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 21. Chapter 8 of the Indian Penal Code deals with offences against public tranquility. S. Section 141 of Indian Penal Code 1860, deals with unlawful assembly. But determining the existence of a common object the court is always required to see the circumstances in which the incident had taken place and also to conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly including the weapons allegedly carried or used at the scene of the crime. Even common objects may form on the spur of the movement. But Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is the penal provision for being a member of an unlawful assembly. But in the instant case, several allegations have been levelled against the accused. Under S.149 of the l Code 1860, every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution. Section 149 does not create separate offences but only declares vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for acts done in the common object. 22. However the evidence on record is running contrary to the evidence each other evidence. PW 4 the alleged eye witness has turned hostile. It is contrary to the evidence of PW.3–Vijayakumar who is also an eyewitness on behalf of the prosecution. But the evidence of PWs.12, 13, 14 and 15 said to be eyewitnesses do not support the prosecution theory. No attempt is made to secure the Doctor from Vatsalya Hospital relating to proof of the injury said to have been sustained by the victims. 23. The trial court has given a finding relating to the evidence of PW.5 in respect of the wound certificate at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7. No doubt the Medical Officer has opined in respect of the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate. 23. The trial court has given a finding relating to the evidence of PW.5 in respect of the wound certificate at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7. No doubt the Medical Officer has opined in respect of the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate. But the opinion was based on the report which has been received from the Vatsalya hospital. But PW.5 is a Doctor who has been subjected to the examination. The evidence is based on the report sent by Vatsalya Hospital, which is not before the court. It is to domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthy evidence. PW.5 being a Doctor He is not a radiologist nor has he mentioned the radiologist’s name while recording the final opinion report and also not mentioned in the x-ray number. In the absence of relevant materials evidence, it is not possible to hold that injuries are inflicted by the accused. 24. Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even minor contradiction and inconsistency in the testimony of an injured eyewitness do not make him an untrustworthy and unreliable witness. But in the instant case evidence of the injured witnesses and the PWs-3 and 4, PW-12 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P-11 and so also the substances narrated at Ex.P-12 FIR recorded by PW-16, contradicts the theory of prosecution. 25. Insofar as the interested witness is concerned, it has been held that the relationship is not a factor to affects the credibility of witnesses. The testimony of injured eyewitnesses cannot be rejected on the ground that they were the interested witnesses. However, in the instant case, the injured has been subjected to examination and even the injury certificates have been issued by PW-5 and he has also been subjected to examination. But the Court must scrutinize the evidence and see the acceptability of the evidence. The trial Court has cautiously assessed the evidence of the prosecution. But there are inconsistencies in their evidence and evidence of eyewitnesses is contradictory to each other and further their evidence is contradictory to the evidence of PW-12 -Suresh who is also said to be an eyewitness and the author of the complaint at Ex.P.11. Where material contradictions are creating reasonable doubt then such evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. Where material contradictions are creating reasonable doubt then such evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. This aspect is addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathia vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999 Cri LJ 1371. 26. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories, there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. This has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi v. the State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 . In the instant case, even the injured witnesses have been subjected to examination and even eyewitnesses PWs-3, 4 and 9 have been examined coupled with the evidence of PWs-10 and 17. PW-17 was an Investigating Officer who investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet. Their evidence runs contrary to each other and there is no cogent corroboration and positive preponderance that the accused have committed the alleged offence by holding the deadly weapons with a common object. 27. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement of witnesses. This issue was extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kishanpal reported in 2008 (8) JT 650 . Whereas in this appeal learned Additional SPP for the State who has taken us through the evidence of injured witnesses such as PWs-12, 13, 14 and 15 and the evidence of PW-8. PW-8 and 15 have sustained grievous injuries and the same is indicated in the injury certificate issued by the doctor. Whereas in this appeal learned Additional SPP for the State who has taken us through the evidence of injured witnesses such as PWs-12, 13, 14 and 15 and the evidence of PW-8. PW-8 and 15 have sustained grievous injuries and the same is indicated in the injury certificate issued by the doctor. But PWs-3, 4 and 9 being the eyewitnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Several counts of offences have been levelled against the accused. On scrutiny of the evidence which is facilitated by the prosecution, guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is not established. Though the witnesses sustained injuries and also have taken higher treatment at Vatsalya Hospital, the prosecution did not make any endeavour to produce the X-ray report. Even the evidence of PW-5 in respect of the injuries and nature cannot be accepted. The same has been observed by the trial Court. In the absence of the evidence of medical officer of Vatsalya Hospital who has given treatment to the injured persons the trial Court has concluded that the prosecution did not make any endeavour to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt relating to the injuries inflicted and the injuries inflicted with means of M.Os.1 to 4 alleged to have been used by the accused. 28. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and also the evidence of the injured witnesses to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution suffers from inconsistencies, discrepancies and there is a delay in recording the complaint and even transmitting the FIR to the Court. These aspects have been discussed by the trial Court and concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, there are no grounds for interference with the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity or any infirmity calling for any interference. Consequently, the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity or any infirmity calling for any interference. Consequently, the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 (1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.180/2011 dated 25/27.09.2013 is hereby confirmed. However, any bail bond executed by the accused/respondent shall stand cancelled.