JUDGMENT : Mohammad Nawaz, J. - This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 against their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Appeal against appellant No.1 has been dismissed as abated. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the evidence and material on record. 3. The charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2012, passed in S.C.No.229/2011, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 of the charges leveled against them under Sections 324, 506, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted under Section 323 read with Section34 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31.12.2010 at about 9.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 along with a juvenile in conflict with law, with a common intention to commit the offence, came in front of the house of the first informant/P.W.-1, armed with clubs and chopper and quarreled with PW-1, his son-PW-2, his son-in-law PW-3 and wife of PW-1 i.e., PW-7 on account of previous enmity assaulted and caused injuries to them etc., and thereby committed the charged offences. 6. Before the trial Court the prosecution got examined PWs-1 to 9 and got marked 12 documents and MOs.1 to 3. The learned trial Judge framed the following points for consideration:- "8. 1) Whether the prosecution proves that on 31.12.2010 at 9.30 p.m., at Tavarekere, within the jurisdiction of Thyamagondlu accused 1 to 3 voluntarily assaulted and caused hurt to C.ws.1 to 3? 2) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 caused grievous injury to C.w.3? 3) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 intended to cause the murder of C.ws.1 to 4? 2) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 caused grievous injury to C.w.3? 3) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 intended to cause the murder of C.ws.1 to 4? 4) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused No.1 to 3 put threat to the lives of C.ws.1 to 4? 5) Whether the prosecution further proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused 1 to 3 intentionally insulted C.w.1 to 4 filthily?" 7. While answering point Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court came to the conclusion that except one injury on the body of PW-7, all other injuries found on her body were simple. The injuries found on PWs-1 to 3 are all simple. It is observed that the very fact that they are all members of the same family and there was a history of ensuing enmity between the parties by itself is sufficient to presume that all of them had common intention to cause such bodily injury to PWs-1. 2, 3 and 7. 8. While answering point No.3, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the oral evidence read in between lines suggest that it turned to be a face to face fight and the accused over powered the situation. In the absence of legal evidence linking the weapons to the accused persons and in view of the discrepancy in the complaint and oral evidence, it is not possible to infer mens rea on the part of the accused persons to do away with the lives of the prosecution witnesses. 9. While answering point Nos.4 and 5, the Trial Court has observed that 'none of the witnesses have stated specifically as to who was that accused, who insulted the witnesses in the public or threatened them to do away with their lives. It is not possible to accept that all the accused persons together would pronounce the same words. Hence, in the absence of corroborative independent witnesses, the said points were answered in the negative. 10. The incident according to the prosecution took place on 31.12.2010 at 9.30 p.m. PW-1 is the first informant. His complaint is got marked as Ex.P-1. It is not possible to accept that all the accused persons together would pronounce the same words. Hence, in the absence of corroborative independent witnesses, the said points were answered in the negative. 10. The incident according to the prosecution took place on 31.12.2010 at 9.30 p.m. PW-1 is the first informant. His complaint is got marked as Ex.P-1. A perusal of the complaint averments reveal that, the houses of the first informant and the accused are situated adjacent to each other. It is alleged that, all the accused came near the house of the first informant by forming an unlawful assembly and started abusing him and his family members i.e., PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are alleged to have throttled PW-2 and accused No.1 assaulted him with a club, accused No.3 kicked and threatened him. When PW-3 tried to intervene, accused Nos.1 and 2 wielded a chopper and the blow fell on first informant's hand and he sustained bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 held the tuft of PW-7 and abused in filthy language and assaulted the first informant with a club. Further accused No.1 and the Juvenile in conflict with law kicked the first informant and also threw chilly powder at them. It is also stated that one Puttaraju instigated the accused to commit the offence. 11. In this case the injured are PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7. PW-1 is the first informant, PW-2 is his son, PW-3 is his son-in-law and PW-7 is the wife of PW-1. The said witnesses have deposed before the trial Court about the quarrel which took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 31.12.2010 and the injuries sustained by them. 12. PW-1 in his evidence has deposed that all the injured took treatment in PHC, Thyamagondlu and his wife got admitted as an in-patient. He has further stated that after taking first aid treatment, he went to Thyamagondlu police station and lodged the complaint-Ex.P-1. 13. PW-9 is the PSI of Thyamagondlu police station. He has deposed that at about 10.30 p.m. on 31.12.2010, the complainant/PW-1 appeared before him and presented the written complaint-Ex.P1. Immediately, he visited the spot and deployed his staff to trace the accused persons. He has deposed about the arrest of accused No.1 and conducting of spot mahazar-Ex.P.2 and seizure of MOs.1-3 from the spot. He has deposed that at about 10.30 p.m. on 31.12.2010, the complainant/PW-1 appeared before him and presented the written complaint-Ex.P1. Immediately, he visited the spot and deployed his staff to trace the accused persons. He has deposed about the arrest of accused No.1 and conducting of spot mahazar-Ex.P.2 and seizure of MOs.1-3 from the spot. He has stated that when he went to the Hospital, the injured persons were not present. 14. PW-6 is the Medical Officer at PHC, who treated PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7. She has deposed that, on the intervening night of 31.10.2010 and 01.01.2011 injured persons came to the hospital and took treatment. Ex.Ps.4 to 7 are the wound certificates of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7 respectively, issued by PW-6. 15. As already noted supra, the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused not guilty of the charges leveled against them under Sections 324, 504, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, but convicted them under Section 323 read with Section34 of IPC, holding that there was a history of ensuing enmity between the parties, which itself is sufficient to presume that all the accused had common intention to cause bodily injury to PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7. 16. To convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has relied on the evidence of the injured witnesses namely PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7 and the medical evidence. In view of the admitted enmity between the two parties, the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 7 has to be scrutinized very carefully. 17. The first informant, PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that accused No.1 is his brother. Hence, the parties are closely related to each other. Further, his evidence shows that the house of the accused persons is situated next to his house. He has deposed that the accused started quarrelling stating that he is withholding the coconut trees for which they are entitled. In the cross examination, he has admitted that the accused persons were using the space in front of his house to have access to the road. It is suggested to him that for the last 2-3 years quarrel is going on and accused No.1 had lodged a complaint against him to the police in respect of the quarrel pertaining to the coconut trees. 18. It is suggested to him that for the last 2-3 years quarrel is going on and accused No.1 had lodged a complaint against him to the police in respect of the quarrel pertaining to the coconut trees. 18. PW2 has also stated about the dispute between his family and the family of the accused in respect of the coconut tree standing between their house. Though PW1 has admitted that accused No.1 had earlier lodged a complaint against him to the police, contrary to the same PW2 has denied accused No.1 having complained against them. The defence has put a suggestion to PW2 that he was drunk at the time of incident and it is he who assaulted accused No.2 while she was cleaning the front yard of her house. The said suggestion was made to PW1 as well, but the same was denied by the witnesses. But, it is relevant to see that PW1, in his cross-examination has admitted that even the first accused has lodged a complaint against him and his family members and on registering the said complaint, the police summoned him to the police station. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that PW1 was working as Deputy Controller of Finance from State Accounts Department and he was on deputation to the office of DG and IGP and retired from service while working in the said office and therefore, he was instrumental in registering a false case against the appellants on account of the enmity between them. It is also contended that due to the influence of PW1, a B-report was filed in the case registered against him and his family members. 19. PW1 has admitted in the cross-examination that he was working as Deputy Controller of Finance from State Accounts Department and he was deputed to the office of the DG and IGP for three years five months and retired from service while working in that office. His cross-examination shows that in respect of the very same incident even accused No.1 lodged a complaint against him and others and he was summoned to the police station. Further, his evidence reveals that the complaint lodged by accused No.1 was registered as Cr.No.112/2010 in the very same police station. His cross-examination shows that in respect of the very same incident even accused No.1 lodged a complaint against him and others and he was summoned to the police station. Further, his evidence reveals that the complaint lodged by accused No.1 was registered as Cr.No.112/2010 in the very same police station. Even though it is admitted by PW1 regarding registration of Crime No.112/2010 against him and his family members, PW3 has tried to suppress the same while he was cross-examined, stating that he is not aware of the registration of the said case. It is elicited from the Investigation Officer, examined as PW9 that the complaint lodged by accused No.1 was registered in Cr.No.112/2010 in their police station. PW9, in his cross-examination has stated that he has not read the contents of the said complaint. His evidence further reveal that the investigation in the said case was conducted by one Head Constable, but later a 'B' report was filed to the Court. 20. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Crime Nos.111/2010 and 112/2010 being a case and counter case, the investigation in both the cases should have been conducted by one and the same Investigation Officer. It is his contention that purposely PW9 did not conduct the investigation in respect of the complaint lodged by accused No.1 on the other hand, he directed his subordinate officer to conduct investigation and file 'B' report. He contends, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Balappa Bhau Vadagave and others (Crl.A.Nos.281 and 282 of 1982 disposed of on 02.03.1984), investigation in a case of this nature, where there are complaints against each other, have to be investigated into by one and the same investigation officer and failure to follow the said procedure would lead to miscarriage of justice. He has also relied on another decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Babu Bharama Kamble and others (Crl.A.100181/2017 disposed of on 28.03.2022) wherein it is held that the investigation conducted by two different Investigation Officers would definitely prejudice the accused. 21. In the instant case, admittedly there was a counter complaint lodged by accused No.1 to the police and a case was registered against PW1 and other injured persons. 21. In the instant case, admittedly there was a counter complaint lodged by accused No.1 to the police and a case was registered against PW1 and other injured persons. Even though a 'B' report was filed in the said case, PW1 and other prosecution witnesses have suppressed registration of the said case against them. However, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 and also in the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer. 22. The learned trial Judge has observed that as per the MLC Register even accused No.1 was treated in the hospital at about 12.15 p.m., by the same doctor who treated the prosecution witnesses. The MLC register would reveal that accused No.1 was brought by the police to the hospital with a history of assault by Ramachandra K. (PW1), T.R. Vasudeva (PW2) and T.N.Krishnaswamy (PW3) on 31.12.2010 at around 9.30 p.m., at their residence. Certain injuries were also noticed. In the background of existing enmity between the parties since 2-3 years, it appears that on the date of incident a quarrel ensued between them, whose houses are situated adjacent to each other. It is not forthcoming from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to how accused No.1 sustained injuries. Further, in Ex.P1 it is alleged that one Puttaraju instigated the accused persons to commit the offence. The said person has not been charge sheeted. Further, there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and EX-P1. As per Ex.P1, accused Nos.1 and 3 tried to press the neck of PW2, whereas PW7 has stated that accused Nos.1 and 4 were trying to press his neck. In Ex.P1 it is stated that both accused Nos.1 and 2 tried to assault the first informant/PW1 with a chopper, due to which he sustained injury to his hand, whereas, in his deposition PW1 has stated that accused No.1 caused injuries to his son-in-law i.e., PW3 with a chopper, due to which his son-in-law while warding off the said assault sustained injuries between his right thumb and right index finger. PW2 has stated that galata was pacified with the intervention of the family members. PW8 has admitted in the cross-examination that when he came out of his house about 5-9 persons had assembled. His evidence also goes to show that there was a galata and the villagers intervened and pacified the galata. PW2 has stated that galata was pacified with the intervention of the family members. PW8 has admitted in the cross-examination that when he came out of his house about 5-9 persons had assembled. His evidence also goes to show that there was a galata and the villagers intervened and pacified the galata. PW4, an independent witness known to the family of the complainant as well as the accused has stated that on hearing the galata, he went to the spot and advised both the party to keep their cool. He has stated that he did not observe injuries suffered by the witnesses. In his cross-examination he has stated that, when he saw the accused, they were not holding clubs and chopper. 23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having re-appreciated the evidence and material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not projected its case in its true manner. The witnesses have failed to putforth as to under what circumstances the incident occurred and the quarrel took place between the two parties. The accused/appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and therefore, the appeal deserves to allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Sessions Case No.229/2011, convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section34 of IPC is hereby set aside. iii. Appeal against accused No.1 is dismissed as abated. iv. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted of the aforesaid offence and their bail bonds stand discharged.