JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the State challenging the acquittal judgment dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Special Judge and II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in S.C.No.90/2008. 2. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1989' for short). 3. The complaint filed by one Siddanna S/o. Hanamanth Hosamani reads as under:- The complainant's father - Hanamanth has six male issues viz., (1) Malleshi (2) Siddanna (victim), (3) Basappa (complainant), (4) Sanganna, (5) Mallikarjun, (6) Sharanappa. It is stated that there was hatred between the family of the complainant and the family of Malleshappa Gurubasappa Majjagi and Basavantraya Ravutappa Mannapur, on account of some political revelry. It is further stated that the above said Malleshappa Gurubasappa Majjagi and Basavantraya Ravutappa Mannapur had assaulted the complainant and his family members. In this regard, several complaints have been lodged at Sindagi Police Station. It is further alleged that before 2004 a complaint was lodged against Malleshappa Majjagi's brothers and his children. For these reasons, said the family had developed hatred towards the complainant and his family members. It is further stated that twenty days before the complaint, Malleshappa Gurubasappa Majjagi, Basavantraya Ravutappa Mannapur, Bhagavantraya Gurubasappa Majjagi, Bhimashankar Malleshappa Majjagi, Nagappa Malleshappa Majjagi, Chandrakant Gurubasappa Majjagi, Basanna Gurubasappa Majjagi and Prakash Malleshappa Majjagi along with 6 to 7 other persons had attempted to kill the complainant's brother viz., Siddanna with deadly weapons. It is further alleged that they had abused the complainant and his family members by taking reference to the caste of the complainant. It is further stated that the complaint was lodged against the aforementioned persons under Section 307 of IPC. It is further stated that Shrisail Gurubasappa Majjagi, Siddanna Sharanappa Bantnur, Malleshappa Majjagi, Basavantraya R. Mannapur and eight persons named above used to threaten the brother of the complainant viz., Siddanna by stating that they will assassinate him. It is further stated that the complainant had been to Sindagi Court on 26.09.2008 along with Bhimaraya to seek bail in connection with the case levelled against them. It is further stated that the complainant had been to Sindagi Court on 26.09.2008 along with Bhimaraya to seek bail in connection with the case levelled against them. Since the file was not put up on that day, they were asked to come to Court on the next date. It is further stated that when the complainant was moving around in Sindagi Bazar, said Malleshappa Gurubasappa Majjagi and seven others were following them and staring at them. When the complainant came to Golgeri Naka to board the Bus to return to his native place, the aforementioned persons were said to have followed the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant and Bhimaraya boarded the Jeep and Siddanna told the complainant that he would come on a motorbike. The complainant stated that they will proceed in the Jeep to his native place. It s further alleged that around 06.00 p.m. the son-in-law of the complainant viz., Devindra informed the complainant that the complainant's brother is killed at Sindagi-Golgeri road near Mannapur village. The complainant states that he went to the spot along with his son-in-law -Bhimaraya, Mareppa Hosamani, Siddappa Dundappa Harijan, and Somaning Kakkalameli, Basavantraya Jalwadi and others. It is stated that when they reached Mannapur village at around 06.30 p.m. the dead body was still on the road with injuries on the head, face and abrasion over the body. The complaint reveals that the Jeep ran over the dead body. The complaint further reveals that the complainant made an enquiry with the people around and they told the complainant that the aforementioned accused followed the complainant's brother on the motorbike and dashed against the rear side of the motorbike and when the complainant's brother fell, they assaulted the victim with rod and later they ran the Jeep over the body of the complainant's brother. It is also stated that the driver of the Bus - Devanand Chandram Dodamani and the passengers of the Tom-Tom vehicle have seen the incident. It is further stated that the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste and the accused belong to the Lingayat community. The aforementioned 08 persons and Shrishail Gurubasappa Majjagi, Siddanna Sharanappa Bantnur, Ramesh Malleshappa Majjagi, Appanna Somaningappa Majjagi, Keshuray Chandramappa Mannapur, Shivaraj Sidramappa Biradar, are named as accused in the complaint. 4. It is further stated that the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste and the accused belong to the Lingayat community. The aforementioned 08 persons and Shrishail Gurubasappa Majjagi, Siddanna Sharanappa Bantnur, Ramesh Malleshappa Majjagi, Appanna Somaningappa Majjagi, Keshuray Chandramappa Mannapur, Shivaraj Sidramappa Biradar, are named as accused in the complaint. 4. Pursuant to the complaint, FIR is registered in Crime No.201/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 (1) & 2 (v) of the Act, 1989. Subsequently, the police have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989. 5. On the filing of the charge sheet, the case is numbered as S.C.No.90/2008 on the file of the Sessions Court at Bijapur. The learned Sessions Judge heard the prosecution and defence and framed the charges against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution to substantiate its contention examined 20 witnesses as PWs.1 to 20 and got marked 32 documents as Exs.P.1 to 32. The material objects are marked as M.O.Nos.1 to 16. Incriminating circumstances against the accused brought in the evidence of the prosecution were read-over and explained to the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances. The accused did not lead any evidence under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. 7. After hearing the submission of the prosecution as well as the accused, by analyzing the evidence on record the Trial Court acting under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. acquitted the accused of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered in S.C.No.90/2008 by the designated Court at Bijapur, the State is in appeal. 9. Heard the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri. R. S. Lagali, the learned counsel for the accused. 10. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered in S.C.No.90/2008 by the designated Court at Bijapur, the State is in appeal. 9. Heard the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri. R. S. Lagali, the learned counsel for the accused. 10. The learned Additional S.P.P. elaborating on various grounds raised in the appeal memo would submit that the learned Sessions Judge committed a grave error in ignoring the vital evidence on record which proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is contended that the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 who were the eye-witnesses to the said incident, successfully established the case of the prosecution. It is further urged that PWs.1 and 2 who were panch-witnesses in respect of seizer of material objects and evidence of Pancha-witnesses is worthy of acceptance and Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving the evidence. It is further contended that evidence of PWs.4 and 5 established the motive for the commission of the offences. As such, the Trial Court could not have acquitted the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that PWs.6, 9 and 16 are also eye-witnesses to the incident. They have clearly stated relating to the motive of the accused and also the act of the accused committing the offences as alleged against the accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that, PW.11 who is the younger brother of the deceased, is a credible witness and his evidence points to the guilt of the accused. Referring to the evidence of PWs.15 – the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem and PW.17 – the Engineer who prepared the sketch of the scene of the offence, the prosecution would urge that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Elaborating the aforementioned grounds, the learned Addl. S.P.P. would urge to set aside the judgment of acquittal and prayed to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989. 11. The learned counsel Sri. R. S. Lagali, for the respondents – accused would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is his case that the evidence of prosecution suffers from contradiction and material omissions. 11. The learned counsel Sri. R. S. Lagali, for the respondents – accused would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is his case that the evidence of prosecution suffers from contradiction and material omissions. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all the contradictions appearing in the evidence of the prosecution and has rightly extended the benefit of the doubt in favour of the accused. It is also submitted that PW.9 who is said to be an eyewitness has not supported the case of the prosecution. In his evidence, he has stated that he has not seen the incident. The learned counsel would also refer to the evidence of PW.4 and referring to evidence and cross-examination, he would urge that even PW.4 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Referring to the medical report, he would also urge that the said report does not indicate any assault on the body of the victim. The learned counsel for the accused would also invite the attention of the Court to Exs.P.1 to 10, highlighting the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the complainant and witnesses viz., PWs.5, 6, 9 and 16. 12. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that 13. Further in the cross-examination he has stated that 14. Further referring to cross-examination of PW.9 which is extracted as under:- 15. Referring to this evidence it is urged that PW.9 who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. It is also urged that PW.9 who is said to have joined the funeral has not given any statement for two months relating to the alleged assault on Siddanna. For the first time, the prosecution has claimed that he has stated before the police two months after the incident. 17. The learned counsel for the accused referring to the evidence of PW.16 urged that PW.16 has not identified any of the accused except accused No.2. The said evidence reads as under:- 18. Referring to the cross-examination of PW.19 who is the Investigating Officer, it is urged that accused are in a position to establish the serious lapses and omissions on the part of the prosecution. 19. The said evidence reads as under:- 18. Referring to the cross-examination of PW.19 who is the Investigating Officer, it is urged that accused are in a position to establish the serious lapses and omissions on the part of the prosecution. 19. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the Trial Court has extended the benefit of the doubt in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands strengthened by the judgment of acquittal. Thus, it is urged that unless a strong case is made for reversal of the judgment, the appellate court would not interfere with the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 20. To support his submission, the learned counsel for the accused would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and others vs. the State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 325. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 21. It is in this background of the contention raised by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and also the counter-argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused the Court has considered the materials on record and the impugned judgment. 22. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence of the doctor to find out as to whether the case of assault with an iron rod alleged by the prosecution is established. PW15 – Dr S B Chikkalaki has conducted the post mortem. Ex.P.11 is the report. The said report indicates 14 injuries. In his opinion, injury No.10 could be caused due to assault by an iron rod. Ex.P.12 is the final opinion given by the doctor and in terms of the said opinion, he says the injury at item No.10 alone cannot cause the death. As far as other injuries are concerned, the doctor has opined that said injuries can be caused if a person falls from a moving motorbike. The learned Sessions Judge after analyzing the evidence on record has concluded that the death of Siddanna is not because of the accident and has concluded that it is a homicidal death. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the suggestion to PW4 – Basappa wherein the previous enmity between the family of Siddanna and the family of the accused is suggested. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the suggestion to PW4 – Basappa wherein the previous enmity between the family of Siddanna and the family of the accused is suggested. Referring to this, the learned Sessions Judge has given the opinion that the death of Siddanna is homicidal. 23. After giving the finding that the death is not on account of the accident, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to analyse the evidence on record to find out whether evidence is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged. Accused Nos.1 to 8 is alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly to eliminate Siddanna. Accused No.11 is alleged to be the driver of the vehicle which is said to have dashed the bike on which Siddanna was riding. There is no dispute over the fact that on account of some incident between Siddanna and the accused, a complaint was lodged by Siddanna against some of the accused. Said complaint is marked as Ex.P.24. Pursuant to the complaint, the case was registered in S.C.No.78/2008 and the accused were acquitted. In the instant case, the FIR at Ex.P.32 was registered based on a complaint dated 27.09.2008. PW 4 – Basappa Hosmani is the complainant and it was registered at 8.45 PM. PW 19 – PSI is examined in this case. In his evidence, he has not whispered as to whether he had information about the incident referred to in the complaint which has taken place a day before the origin of the complaint. Even PW18 – the Dy.S.P. who is the relative of the deceased has not stated relating to knowledge of the incident which has taken place on 26.09.2008. PW 18 has carried out the investigation. In the entire prosecution case, there is no evidence as to when the dead body was removed from the scene of the offence and when the dead body was brought to the hospital. The prosecution does not say that the dead body was at the scene of the offence when the police went to the spot after registering the FIR on 27.09.2008. Admittedly, Dy.S.P. himself has stated that he has conducted the inquest panchanama in the hospital mortuary. Therefore, it is obvious that the dead body was removed from the scene of the incident. Who removed the dead body is not forthcoming from the records. 24. Admittedly, Dy.S.P. himself has stated that he has conducted the inquest panchanama in the hospital mortuary. Therefore, it is obvious that the dead body was removed from the scene of the incident. Who removed the dead body is not forthcoming from the records. 24. The complainant – PW4 who claims to have received information from PW6 – Bhimaraya, who in turn is said to have been informed by PW7 – Devendra has given a statement stating that immediately after receipt of information he went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body. He further states that they went to the scene of the offence at 6.15 PM. It is also stated in the examination-in-chief by PW4 that when he had been to the scene of the offence around 6.15 pm on 26.07.2008, the police were already there at the scene of the incident. Though this version is contrary to the theory of the prosecution, this witness to this extent was not treated hostile. PW4 on the other hand was cross-examined by the defence and he says in the cross-examination that the dead body was shifted to Government Hospital between 9 to 9.30 PM. It is further admitted by PW4 that his sister – Gangabai’s husband is Addl. S.P. working in Bidar and her two sons are Police Sub-inspectors. It has also come in the evidence of PW4 that on 26.07.2008 itself the Addl. S.P. and his two sons were Police Sub-inspectors who had come to the scene of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed these aspects and has also noticed the fact that there is overwriting as to the date mentioned in the complaint both on the first page and on the last page. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the delay in lodging the complaint leads to suspicion given the fact that the complainant’s brother-in-law is Addl. S.P. and his two children are Police Sub-inspectors. The delay in lodging the complaint leads to suspicion. 25. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed the fact that PW7 – Devendar, the driver of the KSRTC bus who came to the scene of the offence has not informed about the presence of accused No.11 and presence of accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of PW6 – Bhimaraya is also analysed by the learned Sessions Judge. 25. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed the fact that PW7 – Devendar, the driver of the KSRTC bus who came to the scene of the offence has not informed about the presence of accused No.11 and presence of accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of PW6 – Bhimaraya is also analysed by the learned Sessions Judge. In his evidence, he states that he received a phone call from Devendra around 6 pm. It is further stated in the evidence of Bhimraya that Basappa was there with him when he received the phone call and Devendra immediately talked to Basappa over the phone and informed him about the murder of Siddanna. However, this version of Bhimaraya is not supported by PW4 – Basappa. Basappa in his evidence states that he received information about the incident from Bhimaraya and not from Devendra. Devendra is examined as PW7. PWs 4 and 6 have stated that Devendra returned to the scene of the offence after parking the bus at Sindgi Depot. However, Devendra gives a different version. Devendra says he parked the bus at Sindagi Depot and at noon on the next day he went to Nandageri Village and he never visited the scene of offence after the incident. 26. PW 5-Raju is the son of deceased Siddanna. He came to the spot at around 9.30 pm. It is stated by PW5 that on the same date in the evening there was a discussion with all the local police officers as to how the case is to be filed and against whom the case is to be filed. The presence of all the local police officers at the scene of the crime is admitted by PW5. The Driver PW7 in his examination-in-chief has admitted the fact that he is the relative of deceased Siddanna. It is further stated that he saw the dead body of Siddanna on the road when he was on his way from Kannur to Sindagi. Except for informing PW6 relating to the incident of the death of Siddanna, he has not stated anything against the accused. This PW7 is treated as hostile. He has denied the statement at Ex.P.5 alleged to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. Except for informing PW6 relating to the incident of the death of Siddanna, he has not stated anything against the accused. This PW7 is treated as hostile. He has denied the statement at Ex.P.5 alleged to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. Referring to this evidence of PW7, the learned Sessions Judge has not accepted the evidence of PW4 – Basappa and PW6 – Bhimaraya who have stated that Devendra has seen the accused coming out of the jeep and assaulting Siddappa. 27. Sangaiah Hiremath, the conductor of the KSRTC bus has not stated anything against the accused. Thus his evidence is of little consequence for the prosecution. 28. PW 10 – Sharanappa has contradicted the versions of the other witnesses viz., PW4 – Basappa, PW5 – Raju and PW6 – Bhimaraya. In his evidence, he says the dead body was shifted to the hospital around 11 pm. He further states the discussion took place on the very night relating to the complaint to be lodged. However, he has denied the presence of the police on the date of the incident. This version is contrary to the version of Basapa, Raju and Bhimaraya who stated that the police were present at the scene of the offence on the very day itself. 29. Referring to the evidence of the above said witnesses, the trial Court has concluded that the prosecution theory is not free from doubt. 30. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the fact that other passengers were travelling in the vehicle in which the accused were also said to be travelling. The prosecution has not to lead the evidence of passengers travelling in the said vehicle. The evidence of these passengers would have been the best. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, no passenger is examined. 31. PW 16 – Nagappa Kannoli has supported the case of the prosecution. He says when he travelled in a jeep along with Shranappa Kadi (PW9) and he saw a Tata Sumo vehicle and a motorbike parked on the road and also saw a person lying on the road and has further stated that 10-12 persons were assaulting the said person. However, PW9 – Sharanappa Kadi has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 in his evidence has clearly stated that he is not in a position to identify the accused. 32. However, PW9 – Sharanappa Kadi has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 in his evidence has clearly stated that he is not in a position to identify the accused. 32. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the fact that the identification parade was not conducted during the investigation. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the fact that MO 13 produced for the Court is not the same object which was found at the scene of the offence. According to PW9 as well as PW16, MO13 is not seen by them at the scene of the offence. 33. Considering the fact that the police inspector though been to the spot on 26.07.2008 itself, has not lodged a complaint and pleaded ignorance relating to the incident and went to the extent of saying that he came to know about the incident only on 28.07.2008 morning when Basappa came to the station to lodge a complaint, this Court is of the opinion that the case pleaded by the prosecution is shrouded with suspicion. There is no supporting evidence to show that the accused assaulted Siddanna. Though the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the death of Siddanna is not accidental, and it is a case of homicide, is justified in holding that the accusation against the accused is not established. 34. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments relied upon the decision in the case of Chandrappa and others vs. the State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 325. In this judgment scope of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is discussed. It is stated that where two views are permissible based on evidence on record, one taken by the trial court in favour of the accused should not be disturbed by the appellate court. 35. In the aforementioned judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has chronologically referred to the judgments reported in (2006) 10 SCC 313 = AIR 2006 SC 831 - Kallu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 4 SCC 85 - Bhagwan Sing v. the State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 286 - Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. the State of Maharashtra. 36. 36. The learned defence counsel has also placed the reliance on 2014 (3) Crimes 187 (SC) - Ramaiah @ Rama v. the State of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC (Crime) 350 - Dilawar Singh v. the State of Delhi, 1990 (1) Crime LC 422 - State of Orissa v. Mr Brahmanand. Based on the above said citations would urge the delay in recording the statements of witnesses would cast serious doubts on the theory of the prosecution. Considering the ratio laid down in the said judgments and for the reasons assigned, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Hence, the following : ORDER The appeal preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378(1) & (b) of the Cr. P.C is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment dated 30.09.2014 rendered by the Special Judge and II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Special Case No.90/2008 is hereby confirmed.