JUDGMENT : G.BASAVARAJA, J. The appellant who is accused No.1 before the trial Court has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, KGF in S.C.No.89/2012 dated 21.02.2013. 2. Parties herein are referred to their rank as before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, BEML Nagara Police Station submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 307 read with 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 was aggrieved with CW12-Suresha in respect of money transaction and in that regard, on 10.02.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Vasanthanagara within the limits of BEML Nagar Police Station accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily assaulted CW2- Muralidharan and CW12-Suresha. CW2 promised that he would pay the money. When he was moving with accused towards Dasarahosahalli, accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated accused No.1 stating that, he is telling lie and finish him off and on that instigation, accused No.1, with an intention to commit his murder, assaulted CW2 on his neck with a sticker cutting blade causing severe cut injury. Thus, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 307 read with 34 of IPC. 4. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C No.271/2012. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in S.C.No.89/2012. Accused appeared and were enlarged on bail. The trial Court has framed the charge only for the offence under Section 307 of IPC read with 34 of IPC. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined, in all, 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and got marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17 and 4 material objects as M.O.1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. During the course of cross-examination of DWs.2 and 13, three documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D3. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. During the course of cross-examination of DWs.2 and 13, three documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D3. 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 307 IPC read with 34 of IPC and accused No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and passed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against accused No.1, has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/accused No.1 would submit that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is arbitrary, capricious and opposed to law and facts. The same is not sustainable under law. Absolutely that there are no ingredients to attract the alleged commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. The reading of evidence of PW.2-injured and his brother PW.13-Suresh, falsify the case of the prosecution. There is no financial transaction between the accused and PW.13. The trial Court has failed to consider the material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.13, the other eye-witnesses PW.9 and PW.10 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought to allow this appeal. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Rangaswamy R., would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against accused No.1, and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for consideration:- i) Whether the appellant/accused No.1 has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court? ii) What order? My answer to the above points are as under:- i) Affirmative; ii) As per final order. 11. ii) What order? My answer to the above points are as under:- i) Affirmative; ii) As per final order. 11. I have examined the material placed before this court. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 was aggrieved with CW12-Suresha in respect of money transaction and in that regard, on 10.02.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Vasanthanagara, Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily assaulted CW2-Muralidharan and CW12-Suresha. CW2 had promised that he would return the money. When he was moving with accused towards Dasarahosahalli, accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated accused No.1 stating that he is telling lie and to finish him off. Upon instigation, accused No.1 with a sticker cutter, assaulted on the neck of CW2 with an intention to commit his murder and accused injury. Thus the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 307 read with 34 of IPC. 13. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to 17 and 4 material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 4. 14. The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 and3 for the commission of offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court. Out of 14 witnesses, PW.1 is the mother of the injured, she is not an eyewitness. PW.1 has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1, which reads as under: 15. On the basis of the complaint, the concerned Police have registered the case in Crime No.13/2012 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex.P9 on 11.02.2012 at 08.00 a.m. 16. PW.1-Premavathi who is the mother of the injured, deposed in her evidence that she has given statement before the Police as per Ex.P1. However she has not deposed anything against the accused on oath. Therefore, evidence of PW.1 will not come to aid of prosecution to substantiate the case of the complainant. According to the case of the prosecution, PW.9-Amar, PW.10 Ramesh and PW.13 are the eye-witness to the alleged incident. PW.9 and PW.10 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined these witnesses as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court. According to the case of the prosecution, PW.9-Amar, PW.10 Ramesh and PW.13 are the eye-witness to the alleged incident. PW.9 and PW.10 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined these witnesses as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court. During the course of cross-examination of PW.9 and PW.10, have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which are marked as Exs.P6 and P7. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers from these eye-witnesses. 17. PW.13 Suresh also not whispered anything against this accused as to the assault made by this accused No.1. He has clearly stated in his evidence that he has not witnessed that, accused No.1 has assaulted his younger brother PW.2. Even in his cross examination made by the Public Prosecutor, after treating him as hostile witness, he has categorically denied the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P16. 18. Now the question is whether evidence of PW.2-injured is sufficient to convict the accused/appellant. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the evidence of PW.2-Muralidhar who has deposed in his evidence that on 10.02.2012 at about 09.30 p.m. when he was taking supper, accused No.2-Dinesh came to his house and told him that they have to go to Hosahalli and took him. He and accused went near Anjaneya temple where accused 1 and 3 were present. Accused No.1 gave blow to him with a knife on the left side of his neck and attempted to push to run towards Kamadhenu Clinic, thereafter he fell near Harish Clinic and sustained bleeding injuries and lost his conscious. He gained conscious in the hospital on the next day. In which hospital, he regained conscious has not bee disclosed by this witness. 19. Ex.P.8-wound certificate reveals that PW.2-Muralidhar s/o Narasimhamurthy, admitted to hospital on 10.02.2012 at 11.00 p.m. with history of assault. PW.11- Doctor has deposed as to the examination of the injured and found injuries 1 to 3 as shown in Ex.P.8. The wound certificate does not reveal the name of the accused and also weapon used for commission of the offence. The evidence of P.W.11 also has not whispered anything against this accused. PW.11- Doctor has deposed as to the examination of the injured and found injuries 1 to 3 as shown in Ex.P.8. The wound certificate does not reveal the name of the accused and also weapon used for commission of the offence. The evidence of P.W.11 also has not whispered anything against this accused. Though, the medical officer has registered this case as MLC as shown in the wound certificate, he has not disclosed the name of the assailants who have assaulted P.W.2-injured, Muralidhar. The Investigating Officer-P.S.I. has not whispered anything as to non-mentioning of the name and weapon used for commission offence in wound certificate. The Investigating Officer has not collected any materials regarding date of admission and date of discharge from the hospital and he has not collected the case sheet maintained by the hospital as to when the injured was admitted to the hospital vide No. 777633, as shown in the wound certificate. In the absence of material evidence, i.e. the case sheet maintained by the Hospital, it is difficult to accept the sole interested testimony of PW2. Since the evidence of sole interested testimony of PW2 has not been corroborated by any other evidence, including the medical evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused on the testimony of PW2. However, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The appeal is allowed ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, KGF in S.C.No.89/2012 dated 21.02.2013 is set aside. iii) Appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. iv) The fine amount deposited if any, by the appellant/accused No.1 shall be returned to him.