JUDGMENT : G.BASAVARAJA, J. This appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 29 th August, 2013 and order on sentence dated 30 th August, 2013 passed in S.C. No.157/2011 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short "trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: It is alleged by the prosecution that on 07.06.2011, at around 12:00 noon, the complainant had visited Jagadish Jewellery. The individuals accompanying the complainant were having lunch at Siddalingappa’s Hotel. At that juncture, the appellant arrived at the jewellery shop on a motorcycle, took out a chopper from the vehicle, and began abusing the complainant in filthy language, simultaneously threatening to endanger her life. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted the complainant with the said chopper. Though the chopper was aimed twice at the complainant’s neck, it struck her head when she bent forward. On hearing her cries of pain, the persons accompanying the complainant rushed to her rescue and attempted to apprehend the accused; however, the accused managed to escape. Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 504 , 326, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code . 4. The accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in CC No.501/2011. After committal to the Court of Sessions, case was registered in SC No.157/2011. 5. Upon hearing charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for offences punishable under Section 504 , 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code . Same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the case of the prosecution, a total of 22 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 22, and eleven documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P11. Eight material objects were marked as MOs 1 to 8. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The accused stated that a false case has been foisted against him. 7. Eight material objects were marked as MOs 1 to 8. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The accused stated that a false case has been foisted against him. 7. After the full-fledged trial, having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 326 , 504, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code . The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 504 . Further, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code . All the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence passed by the trial Court is are highly illegal and erroneous. The trial Court has erred in believing relying on the evidence of PW1, though her evidence testimony is quite contrary to the earlier statement given by her. The trial Court has failed to take notice of the fact that, according to the statement given by the complainant and other witnesses, after releasing from jail, they wanted to proceed towards Hosadurga, as there were no buses available at that time, they stayed at Lakshmipathy’s house; however, said Lakshmipathy has not been examined before the Court. This version is not supported by any evidence. According to the prosecution story, the incident took place at the shop of PW15, but PW15 has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. 9. The trial Court has failed to take notice of the fact that PWs1 to PW5, PW14, PW16 and PW20 are interested witnesses. Still, the trial Court, has convicted the appellant based on the statement of the above said witnesses without scrutinizing the same meticulously. 9. The trial Court has failed to take notice of the fact that PWs1 to PW5, PW14, PW16 and PW20 are interested witnesses. Still, the trial Court, has convicted the appellant based on the statement of the above said witnesses without scrutinizing the same meticulously. As per the statement of the complainant, she had been to shop of PW15 for enquiring her jewels pledged with him. In order to prove that jewels have been pledged with PW15, no documentary evidence has been produced and particularly, PW15 has not supported the case of prosecution. 10. As per the statement of PW1, she has taken treatment at Mathod Hospital, Government Hospital, Hosadurga, Bapuji hospital, Davanagere and at Chitradurga hospital. But no documents have been produced in this regard. Learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy and believable. 11. The appellant counsel pointed out that the statement recorded under section.313 of crpc is kept blank from page No.6 to 143, however, the trial Court has taken the signature of the accused. 12. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and on all these grounds, sought for allowing the appeal. 13. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri B.Lakshman, appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and hence sought for dismissal of appeal. 14. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the appellant/accused has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court? 2. What order? Regarding Point No.1: 15. I have examined the materials placed before me. The genesis of this case arise out of complaint-Exhibit P1 filed by PW1-Smt. Satyamma, in which she has stated as under: 16. The Complaint-Exhibit P1 reveals that the alleged incident took place on 07th June, 2011, at 12:00 noon. The Police received the complaint on 08th June, 2011, at 00:15 hours in Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, in Ward No. 451. The genesis of this case arise out of complaint-Exhibit P1 filed by PW1-Smt. Satyamma, in which she has stated as under: 16. The Complaint-Exhibit P1 reveals that the alleged incident took place on 07th June, 2011, at 12:00 noon. The Police received the complaint on 08th June, 2011, at 00:15 hours in Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, in Ward No. 451. On the same day, at 17:30 hours, Sri D. Raju, Assistant Sub- Inspector, presented the same before the Station House Officer, and it was registered as Crime No. 97 of 2011 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 506, 326, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code . The First Information Report—Exhibit P8—was submitted to the Court on 08th June, 2011, at 7:30 a.m. 17. PW1-Complainant Satyamma deposed in her evidence that, about two years ago, Manjunath had filed a false case against them, and in that regard, she was in judicial custody. On the day she was released from Chitradurga Prison, at about 6:00 p.m., she, along with PWs 2 to 5, PW16- Sangappa (father of PW1), and her brother-in-law Thimmaraju, went to Hosadurga to proceed to their village Hosur Bhovihatti. Since there was no bus facility, they stayed at the house of her sister's friend in Hosadurga. The next day, they went to Haalurameshwara Temple, returned to Hosadurga, and later went to Mathod. At Mathod, PW1 went to the Police Station, where the Police gave her a phone number, instructing her to call if any quarrel took place. Since they were hungry, they went to a hotel. Further, PW1 deposed that on an earlier occasion, she had pledged her gold ornaments and therefore went to the shop of PW15-Jagadeeshchandra. While standing near the shop of PW15, the accused suddenly came to her, abused her in filthy language, and assaulted her on the middle portion of her head with a chopper. Further, he attempted to assault her on the neck, but when she escaped the blow by stretching her right hand, the chopper fell on her right little finger. When she screamed, her elder sister and other people gathered. Then, the accused fled the scene. Thereafter, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hosadurga, in an ambulance. There, the doctor administered first aid and sutured the wound. Then they proceeded to Chitradurga for higher treatment. When she screamed, her elder sister and other people gathered. Then, the accused fled the scene. Thereafter, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hosadurga, in an ambulance. There, the doctor administered first aid and sutured the wound. Then they proceeded to Chitradurga for higher treatment. Following the doctor's advice there, she was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davangere, where she was admitted as an in-patient. Between 00:15 and 01:00 hours, the Police received her complaint as per Exhibit P1. She was in the hospital for about a week. Thereafter, she was discharged and went to Chikkamagaluru Hospital. She identified MOs1 to 7. Further, she deposed about the accused's motive that, since he suspected PW1 of having murdered his brother’s son, he bore a grudge and, in order to kill her, assaulted and tried to kill her. 18. PW2-Kamalamma, PW3-Neelamma, PW4-Sharadamma, PW5-Kariyappa, PW14-Shivanandappa, PW15- Jagadishchandra, PW16-Sangappa and PW20-Ranjith, are the witnesses to the incident. 19. PW15-Jagadishchandra, the owner of the jewellery shop, has not supported the case of the prosecution. All other witnesses have deposed in their examination-in-chief that the accused assaulted PW1-Satyamma. However, during cross- examination, PW2-Kamalamma admitted that she came from the hotel only after hearing PW1’s scream. By that time, people had already gathered there, and the police had apprehended the accused. She does not know whether the police seized the chopper or not. 20. PW4-Sharadamma has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not seen the chopper used for commission of alleged offence. 21. PW5-Kariyappa has deposed in his cross-examination that when he came to the spot, people had already gathered and Police took the accused along with the motorcycle at 11.00 am. 22. PW14-Shivanandappa, in his cross-examination, denied the statement recorded by the police as per Exhibit D1, that on the afternoon of 7th June 2011, he was sitting at the bus stand of his village. Further, he admitted that he visited the spot and found that people had already gathered there. Scrutiny of this evidence of the eyewitness reveals inconsistencies in the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses. Apart from this, Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that PW4- Sharadamma, PW2-Kamalamma, and PW3-Neelamma are the sisters of PW1-Satyamma. It is an admitted fact that the police arrested PW1 as she was involved in the murder of the elder brother's son of the accused. Scrutiny of this evidence of the eyewitness reveals inconsistencies in the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses. Apart from this, Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that PW4- Sharadamma, PW2-Kamalamma, and PW3-Neelamma are the sisters of PW1-Satyamma. It is an admitted fact that the police arrested PW1 as she was involved in the murder of the elder brother's son of the accused. It is also an admitted fact that after PW1 was released from jail, the alleged incident happened. PWs 1 to 4 are close relatives. Therefore, it is not safe to accept their testimonies in the absence of independent witnesses. 23. The names of PW5-Kariyappa, PW14- Shivanandappa, PW2-Kamalamma, PW16-Sangappa and PW20- Ranjith, have not been shown in the complaint Exhibit P1. If really they had witnessed the incident, PW1-complainant would have revealed their names in the complaint. But she had not done so. The investigating officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses on 8 th June, 2011. However, he has not submitted the same to the court along with the remand application. Only at the time of filing charge-sheet, the investigating officer has submitted the statement of these witnesses. The investigating officer has not explained as to how he came to know about the presence of independent witnesses at the spot, at the time of alleged incident. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to accept story of the prosecution that above witnesses are independent witnesses. 24. PW2-Kamalamma, PW5-Kariyappa, and PW14- Shivanandappa were cross-examined regarding the alleged incident. Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that after the assault, the accused fled the scene along with the chopper used in the commission of the alleged offence. However, during the cross- examination, PW2-Kamalamma and PW5-Kariyappa deposed that soon after the incident, the police arrived at the spot, apprehended the accused along with the motorcycle, and took him to the police station. According to the prosecution, the investigating officer arrested the accused on 8th June 2011 at 11:00 a.m. near Huliyar bus stand along with the motorcycle while the accused tried to escape. If the accused had indeed committed the offence as alleged, he would have absconded. Instead, on the very next day at 11:00 a.m., he was present near the Huliyar bus stand with his motorcycle. As stated above, some of the alleged witnesses deposed that the police apprehended the accused along with the chopper and motorcycle. If the accused had indeed committed the offence as alleged, he would have absconded. Instead, on the very next day at 11:00 a.m., he was present near the Huliyar bus stand with his motorcycle. As stated above, some of the alleged witnesses deposed that the police apprehended the accused along with the chopper and motorcycle. This inconsistent evidence casts doubt on the alleged act of the accused. If the police had apprehended the accused on the spot along with the weapon and the motorcycle, they could have immediately arrested and produced him before the court. Instead, the investigating officer stated that he deputed police staff to apprehend the accused, and on the following day, they arrested him and interrogated him. On the basis of his voluntary statement, they seized MOs1 to 8 at his instance under mahazar dated 8th and 9th June 2011, which were marked as exhibits P3 to P5. 25. PW6-Sidramappa and PW7-Dasappa, said to be mahazar witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. 26. PW8-Ashok is said to be the attester to seizure mahazar-Exhibit P3, and PW10-Hanumanthappa is said to be the attester to seizure mahazar-Exhibit P4. PW11-Ningaappa and PW12-Kapiyajja, who are the attestors to seizure mahazar Exhibit P5, have not supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses have been declared hostile with the permission of the Court and are examined by the public prosecutor. Even in their cross-examination, they have categorically denied the contents of the mahazar said to have been drawn by the investigating officer. 27. Apart from this, the investigating officer seized the properties on 8th and 9th June 2011 in Property Form Nos. 55 to 58 of 2011 however produced the Property Forms before the Court only on 13th June 2011, as endorsed by the learned Magistrate on the respective forms. The delay in submitting the seized property to the jurisdictional Magistrate has not been explained by the investigating officer. Accordingly, the investigating officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . This also creates reasonable doubt as to the seizure of the property at the instance of the accused. 28. With regard to the medical evidence, the prosecution has produced the wound certificate—Exhibit P6— issued by the Government Hospital, Hosadurga. Accordingly, the investigating officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . This also creates reasonable doubt as to the seizure of the property at the instance of the accused. 28. With regard to the medical evidence, the prosecution has produced the wound certificate—Exhibit P6— issued by the Government Hospital, Hosadurga. The certificate reveals that on 7th June 2011 at 2:30 p.m., Smt. Satyamma was brought by Sangappa, her father, and Sharadamma, PW1’s sister, with a history of assault by an iron sickle near Mathod Bus Stand on 7th June 2011 at 11:30 a.m. The doctor examined the injured and found her drowsy and not responding coherently. The injuries were noted in the wound certificate. The admission intimation slip, which is available on record but not marked by the prosecution, indicates that the injured was admitted to the hospital with the history of assault near the Police Station in Mathod, Hosadurga Taluk, on 7th June 2011 at 11:30 a.m. Exhibit P1-complaint reveals that the investigating officer recorded the statement of the injured, Satyamma, at Bapuji Hospital on 8th June 2011 between 00:15 and 01:00 hours. The prosecution has not disclosed whether the injured was in a fit condition to give the statement at that time. Moreover, the investigating officer did not collect the Case Diary maintained by Government Hospital, Hosadurga, or Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. The wound certificate confirms that the injured was admitted to Bapuji Hospital, Davangere; however, the prosecution has not disclosed the date of admission. 29. PW13, Dr. Deepak, Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Hosadurga, stated that when he examined the patient, she appeared drowsy and was not responding clearly. Her pulse rate was 94 beats per minute, which is slightly above normal. Her blood pressure was 120/70 mm Hg, and her respiratory rate was 23 breaths per minute.During cross-examination, Dr. Deepak mentioned that the patient had been referred from the Primary Health Centre in Mathod, where no suturing was done and only a band-aid had been applied. He also said that he reported the Medico- Legal Case to the Hosadurga Police Station at 2:30 p.m. on June 7, 2011. He admitted that Exhibit P6, the wound certificate, does not mention the treatment given to the patient or whether any suturing was done. He further stated that he did not receive the in-patient records from Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. He also said that he reported the Medico- Legal Case to the Hosadurga Police Station at 2:30 p.m. on June 7, 2011. He admitted that Exhibit P6, the wound certificate, does not mention the treatment given to the patient or whether any suturing was done. He further stated that he did not receive the in-patient records from Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. The patient was brought to the hospital by her father, Sangappa. However, the investigating officer failed to produce the case diaries from Bapuji Hospital, Mathod Hospital, or the Government Hospital at Hosadurga. The Medico-Legal Case register was also not collected, even though the medical officer had recorded the case as a Medico-Legal Case.The investigating officer offered no explanation for the missing case sheet or Medico-Legal Case register. Despite the absence of supporting documents, Dr. Deepak included the CT scan and X- ray findings in the wound certificate. These reports showed that the brain CT scan was normal, with no signs of intracranial injury. The wound certificate also does not mention the name of the accused. If the accused had indeed assaulted PW1, it is likely that the father would have conveyed that information to the medical officer. Dr. Deepak did not make any statement directly implicating the accused. These omissions and procedural gaps raise doubts about the alleged involvement of the accused. 30. Insofar as the weapon seized by the prosecution is concerned, MO1, the chopper, was identified by PW1. The evidence of the key witnesses shows that the investigating officer did not produce this material object on the dates when the statements of PW1 and other witnesses were recorded. As a result, the trial court observed that the investigating officer had not produced any material object at the time of filing the charge-sheet, and that it was not entered in the property register. This was treated as a serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer. The trial court therefore called for an explanation and adjourned the case, postponing the examination-in-chief of PW1 and the other witnesses. More than a month later, the investigating officer produced the material objects, and on 14th March 2013, the chopper was marked as MO1. Exhibit P1, the complaint, states that the accused assaulted PW1 with a machhu (chopper). The wound certificate, however, records that the assault was caused by an iron sickle. More than a month later, the investigating officer produced the material objects, and on 14th March 2013, the chopper was marked as MO1. Exhibit P1, the complaint, states that the accused assaulted PW1 with a machhu (chopper). The wound certificate, however, records that the assault was caused by an iron sickle. Exhibit P3, the seizure mahazar, states that the police seized a machhu, 15 inches long with a handle. Property Forms 55 to 58 of 2011 show that the investigating officer obtained permission to retain the properties until filing the final report.The charge-sheet was submitted on 6th August 2011 at 5:30 p.m., as endorsed by the jurisdictional magistrate, but the seized properties were not produced on that day. Only after the court called for an explanation, and after examining the material witnesses, were the properties produced on 14th March 2013. Thus, from 6th August 2011 to 14th March 2013, the investigating officer kept all the material objects without the court’s permission. No explanation was given for not producing them when the charge-sheet was filed, and the jurisdictional magistrate also did not explain why the properties were not received earlier.These circumstances cast doubt on the alleged seizure of the properties. The weapon described in the wound certificate does not match the weapon said to have been seized. Further, the investigating officer did not obtain any serology report to prove that the bloodstains found on the material objects matched the injured person’s blood. Exhibit P11, the FSL report, shows that Item 1 is hair and Item 2 is a machhu (chopper). Items 2 to 7 were stained with blood of group ‘O’, and Item 1 and the hair on Exhibit P2 were of human origin and of the same type. However, the investigating officer did not collect PW1’s blood sample to compare it with the bloodstains on Items 1 to 7 and therefore did not obtain a conclusive serology report. Consequently, Exhibit P11 does not help the prosecution to prove that the bloodstains on the seized material objects belonged to PW1. 31. The sanctity of the 313 statement requires that the trial court must record this statement diligently, carefully, and without negligence. The accused must be questioned personally in court, and the questions should be clear, specific, and related to material facts on which the prosecution relies. 31. The sanctity of the 313 statement requires that the trial court must record this statement diligently, carefully, and without negligence. The accused must be questioned personally in court, and the questions should be clear, specific, and related to material facts on which the prosecution relies. The court must avoid blank or incomplete recordings or taking signatures on partially blank pages, as this undermines the fairness and legality of the procedure. However,in the present case as pointed out by the appellant counsel regarding the 313 statement, the trial court has not properly recorded it, although it is a mandatory provision. It appears that the trial court treated it as a mere formality and recorded it in a negligent manner, leaving many pages blank and still taking the accused's signatures on those incomplete pages. 32. Upon perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that there are inconsistencies regarding the arrest of the accused. Viewed from any angle, this court finds no cogent, corroborative, clinching, believable, or trustworthy evidence to convict the accused. Despite the absence of acceptable legal evidence, the trial court convicted the accused based on assumptions, presumptions, and surmises, which is unsustainable in law. In accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Therefore, it is the considered opinion of this court that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 33. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed; 2. Judgment of conviction dated 29 th August, 2013 and order on sentence dated 30 th August, 2013 passed in SC No.157 of 2011 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, are set aside; 3. Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable and sections 326, 504 and 307 of Indian Penal Code ; 4. Concerned Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any deposited by the accused; 5. Registry to send intimation to the concerned jail authorities, through E-mail, to release the accused forthwith, if he is not involved in any other case.