JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. Appellant/accused have preferred this appeal against the judgement of conviction and order on sentence dated 07 th February, 2022 passed in Sessions Case No.192 of 2020 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi (for short hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court. 3. Facts in nutshell are that the Circle Inspector of Police Raibagh Circle submitted charge sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 326 , 504 and 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 07 th January 2020 at noon, beside the road situated at the land of the complainant, when witness Srikanth, after flowing water to the land, was standing, and at that time accused No.3-Mallappa coming on a motorcycle, abused him in filthy words as “Aye bosadi magane” and asked as to why he was standing beside the road and in that context, exchange of words took place between them. This was informed to the complainant by the said Srikanth. It is alleged that on the same day at about 6 PM when the complainant and CW4-Girimalla returned to house from Terdal, and while the complainant Siddappa, CW5-Srikanth were standing near their house, at that time, the accused and their father, with a common object, armed with clubs, iron rod and lead ball, came there and abused them in filthy words and accused 3 & 4 assaulted with lead ball on shoulder and back of CW4; accused No.1 assaulted with iron rod on the head and with an intention to commit murder assaulted Siddappa Satyappa Teli and assaulted CWs4 & 5 with iron rod, lead ball and clubs near the shop of CW8. It is further alleged that when CW7 came to rescue, accused assaulted on her back and CW5 escaped the assault but Siddappa sustained grievous injuries on his back, left ear and below the left knee. Accused also caused grievous injuries near the right eye and the back of the complainant and also caused grievous injuries on the right elbow, both shoulders and to the back of CW4. Accused further caused injury on the back of CW7 and also to CW5. Accused also caused grievous injuries near the right eye and the back of the complainant and also caused grievous injuries on the right elbow, both shoulders and to the back of CW4. Accused further caused injury on the back of CW7 and also to CW5. After the incident, the complainant, CW4 and Siddappa were taken in 108 Ambulance to Harugeri for medical treatment and at on the way to Hospital, about 7:30 PM near Harugeri, said Siddappa died and the body was kept in the Government Hospital, Harugeri. Further, the injured took medical treatment in Dr. Patil's General Hospital. In this regard, a complaint came to be filed and case came to be registered in Crime No.5 of 2020. After investigation, police arrested the accused and produced them before the Court and submitted the chargesheet for the offence punishable unde Sections 302 , 307, 326, 504 , 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code . Guruling Ramappa Teli, whose name was shown in the First Information Report, was dropped in the charge-sheet. 4. After filing, chargesheet, jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance and case came to be registered in CC No.293 of 2020. After committal of case to the Sessions Court, case was registered in SC No.192 of 2020. Upon hearing charges, the learned Judge framed charges against the accused for commission of alleged offences. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, 20 witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 20 and marked 68 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P68 and 17 material objects were marked as MOs1 to 17. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses appearing against them, but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. While recording the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , accused have produced eight documents. 6. Having heard arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under sections 504, 326, 307, 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . 6. Having heard arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under sections 504, 326, 307, 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellants/accused have preferred this appeal. 7. Sri K.L. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.S. Patil appearing for appellants/accused, would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The trial Court has not considered the material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The complainant has nowhere mentioned with regard to throwing of chilli-powder-MO5 and the same was recovered without any basis and therefore, it creates serious doubt as to proper investigation conducted by the investigating officer. It is alleged that the offence was committed by using lead ball. But neither the lead ball recovered from any of the accused nor is marked as material object and under such circumstances, it reveals improper and incorrect investigation by the investigating officer. He would further submit that earlier, the father of appellants-Guruling Ramappa Teli was also arrayed as an accused in FIR and in the complaint. In fact, the said Guruling is neither able to stand nor can walk properly and his name was falsely implicated in the FIR and complaint and later, the investigating officer has not filed charge-sheet against the said Guruling. The fact of falsely implicating said Guruling, falsifies the entire case of prosecution. Under the circumstance, the conviction order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of Law. 8. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the material on record. The evidence of CW1 and the wife of deceased, are not corroborating with each other. The wife of deceased in her evidence stated that the accused splattered chilli-powder and beaten her husband, but the complainant in his evidence has not stated anything about the chilli-powder. The wife of the deceased has deposed that accused 1 & 2 were residing separately as they were working as teachers. The trial Court failed to take note of this fact and erred in convicting the appellants. The wife of the deceased has deposed that accused 1 & 2 were residing separately as they were working as teachers. The trial Court failed to take note of this fact and erred in convicting the appellants. It is further submitted that accused No.2 is a teacher in the Government School and he is falsely implicated in the alleged crime. It is submitted that accused No.2 is working in Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Kappalaguddi, and Principal of the said School has issued notice dated 22 nd January 2022 to accused No.2, calling explanation as to why he was absent from 08 th January, 2020, which Notice goes to show that he was on duty on 07 th January 2020, i.e. the alleged date of incident. As per the prosecution, the alleged incident took place on 07 th January, 2020 and School record shows that accused No.2 was present in the school on that date at about 4.30 pm. The prosecution had intentionally dragged this accused in the case. Further, the distance between the place of the alleged incident and the school is far away and it takes at least one hour to reach from the place of incident to school. The alleged incident took place at 6.00 pm which clearly shows that the as on the date of alleged incident, the accused No.2 was not at all present. The trial Court has lost sight of this aspect and erred in convicting the accused No.2. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that PW6 in his evidence has stated that immediately after the incident, police came and her husband was sent to hospital, but as per the statement of PW1, Police came only on the next day to the place of incident and wrote the complaint and he signed the complaint. Non-corroboration of two versions of complainant and his mother, creates serious doubt about prosecution story. The trial Court has failed to take note of this important aspect and erred in convicting the appellants which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that PW1 narrated in his evidence that the police had written the complaint after taking due instructions from him. Whereas PW12 the alleged circumstantial witness, states that he has written the complaint. There cannot be two complaints. The prosecution has failed to prove that on which complaint they have investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet. It is submitted that PW1 narrated in his evidence that the police had written the complaint after taking due instructions from him. Whereas PW12 the alleged circumstantial witness, states that he has written the complaint. There cannot be two complaints. The prosecution has failed to prove that on which complaint they have investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet. The learned Counsel would submit that if there are two complaints, the whole investigation process will be vitiated and also creates serious doubt with regard to the commission of offence and under the circumstance, the accused should have been granted the benefit of doubt and the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused. 10. Learned counsel would further submit that right from the beginning, the complainant is trying to convert the motorcycle accident of his father into one of murder. It is also evident from the records as well as evidence of PW13-Doctor of Government Hospital who has deposed that a person who falls on a stone will also get inflicted with injuries similar to the one that would inflict upon falling from a motorcycle. Therefore, it creates serious doubt as to occurrence the incident as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Counsel submitted the trial Court failed to take note of this very important aspect and erred in convicting the accused. He would further submit that as per the version of the complainant, as well as PW6, her husband was dragged for about a distance of 20 feet by the accused. But as per the postmortem report, no such drag injuries are found on the body. This also creates doubt as to the prosecution story. 11. PWs2 & 3 are the mahazar witnesses and as per their version, they have only signed the paper and did not know the contents of the mahazar. The so-called eye-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, including Mahazar witnesses. There is no consistency in the say of injured witnesses. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution has failed to place any convincing, corroborative, cogent and trustworthy and believable evidence before the Court, however, the trial Court has convicted the accused which is not tenable in the eye of law and hence the impugned judgement of conviction and order on sentence is liable to be set aside. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal. 12. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal. 12. On the other hand, Sri M.B. Gundwade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, would support the judgment of conviction and order on sentence and submit that the trial Court has considered and appreciated the material on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of records placed before us, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court suffers from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? 2. What order? 14. Our answer to the above points would be as under: Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: As per final order Regarding Point No.1 15. We have carefully examined the prosecution papers, evidence and perused the impugned judgement of conviction and order on sentence and other materials. 16. To prove the case of prosecution, twenty witnesses have been examined as PWs1 to 20, 68 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P68 and seventeen material objects are marked as MOs1 to 17. 17. The genesis of the case arises out of Exhibit P1- complaint filed by PW1-Basappa Siddappa Teli on 07 th January 2020, in which the complainant has stated as under: 18. On the basis of this complaint, Harugeri police have registered case in Crime No.5 of 2020 against Guruling Ramappa Teli, Guruling Mahadev Teli, Mallappa Guruling Teli, Hanumantha Guruling Teli, Dundappa Guruling Teli as accused 1 to 5 respectively, who are residents of Mugulkod, Raibag Taluk. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the Hanumantha Guruling Teli-A1, Dundappa Guruling Teli-A2, Mallappa Guruling Teli-A3, Mahadev Guruling Teli-A4. The Investigating Officer has dropped the name of accused No.5-Guruling Ramappa Teli from the charge sheet, as there is no direct and circumstantial evidence found against him. The Investigating Officer has also dropped the offences against the accused as shown in the First Information Report under Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and submitted the charge sheet against accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 326, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . The trial Court has acquitted the accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code . The State has not preferred appeal against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 4 for offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code . 19. Complaint-Exhibit P1 reveals that there is long- mstnding dispute between the accused and the complainant with regard to pathway which is used by them to go to their village. As per the averment of the complainant, the present accused 1 to 4, along with accused No.5 whose name is dropped from the charge-sheet, came armed with clubs, iron rod and a lead ball and abused the complainant in filthy words and gave life threat stating that they will not spare them. Mallappa and Mahadev accused 3 & 4 respectively, assaulted Girimalla with lead ball on his shoulders and back. Accused Hanumantha gave blow to him with iron rod on his head. Further it is alleged that the accused chased his father Siddappa, younger brothers Girimalla and Srikantha with an intention to commit murder and gave blow to them with iron rod, lead ball and club near their house and when the wife of the complainant-Gangavva intervened to rescue them, the accused assaulted her on her back. Then his younger brother Srikantha escaped the spot. Then the accused assaulted his father Siddappa Satyappa Teli aged 60 years, who received injuries on the back side of his left ear, left leg and knee and became unconscious. Then accused left him. He has received injury on his back, Girimalla received injuries on his right elbow and sustained grievous hurt on both of his shoulders and back. His wife Gangavva has sustained contusion on her back. Then they took their father along with brothers in 108 Ambulance. While they were proceeding to hospital in Ambulance, at 7.30 pm, their father-Siddappa Satyappa Teli, breathed his last. 20. After submitting First Information Report to the Court, the Investigating Officer has recorded further statement of the complainant-PW1 in which he has stated that out of rage he has mentioned the name of Guriling Ramappa Teli hitting with lead ball, and the same is not correct; hence he pleaded that presence of Guruling Ramappa Teli or lead ball was not in the scene. 21. 21. PW1-complainant, injured-Girimalla Siddappa Teli and another injured Shrikant Siddappa Teli were produced before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibagh on 11 th March 2020 and the learned Magistrate has recorded their statement under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure on the same day in Criminal Misc. No.443 of 2020 as per Exhibit P2, P36 and P37. in which they have stated the name of accused No.5 Dundappa Guruling Teli. Even others have not whispered anything as to mentioning the name of accused No.5 in Exhibit P1-Complaint and PW1 has also not deposed as to the further statement said to have recorded by the Investigating Officer on 08 th January, 2020. 22. It is also necessary to mention here as to the relevant portion of the further statement of the complainant, which is recorded on 08 th January, 2020. The same reads thus: 23. PW4-Girimalla Siddappa Teli, has deposed in his evidence that the accused came with chilli-powder, clubs, iron rod and abused them stating that they will finish them. Accused No.3 assaulted him with club on both of his shoulders; accused No.2 gave blow to his father Siddappa on his left ear with club; accused No.1 assaulted to CW1 with club on his left leg and ribs; accused No.4 assaulted to CW6/PW6-Smt. Kallavva with club on her back; accused No.2 assaulted to CW7/PW2-Smt. Gangavva with club on her back; accused No.3 assaulted CW6/PW6 with club on her right leg and back; accused No.1 assaulted his father with iron rod on his leg. Then his father lost conscious. PW5-Srikanth Siddappa Teli has deposed in his evidence that when they were near their house, all the accused came holding chilli-powder, clubs, rod and abused them in filthy language then accused No.2 splattered chilli-powder upon him and his father and then the accused dragged his father to a distance of twenty feet from their house. Accused No.2 assaulted to his father with iron rod on his left leg. Accused No.2 assaulted him with club on his back and his left leg. Accused No.1 gave blow to the left leg of his father with iron rod. Accused No.2 caught hold of his neck and pulled him. Accused No.4 gave blow to CW1 on his back. Accused No.2 gave blow to CW1 on his right hand. Accused No.2 assaulted him with club on his back and his left leg. Accused No.1 gave blow to the left leg of his father with iron rod. Accused No.2 caught hold of his neck and pulled him. Accused No.4 gave blow to CW1 on his back. Accused No.2 gave blow to CW1 on his right hand. Then they pushed their father to the canal located by the side of the road. He and CW1 intervened to rescue his father, accused No.2 gave blow to his father with club on his left ear. Accused No.2 also assaulted to CW4/PW4-Girimalla with club. 24. PW6-Kallavva Siddappa Teli deposed in her evidence that accused assaulted to them with iron rod and club and have also thrown chilli-powder. Accused No.2 gave blow to her husband on her head with club causing bleeding injury. Accused also assaulted to her three children with club on their back and abdomen. Accused No.1 gave blow to her husband with iron rod on his left leg. Remaining accused assaulted to her children. When she intervened to rescue, the accused dragged her husband near the shop of Halanagali and assaulted him and then accused pushed her husband into canal. Her husband has received injuries on his head and left leg wherein the leg fractured. 25. PW7-Gangavva Basappa Teli, another eye-witness, has not deposed anything against accused No.5. She has deposed that all the four accused assaulted to her father-in-law Siddappa with clubs and rod. When she intervened to rescue, accused No.4 gave blow to her with club on her back. Accused assaulted to CWs1, 4, 5 & 6 with iron rod. Her husband received injury on his back, waist and head. Accused splattered chilli-powder on the eyes of CW4 and gave blow to him with club. When CW6 intervened to rescue, all the accused gave blow to her with iron road and club. Accused No.1 gave blow to deceased Siddappa with iron rod on his head and also to his left leg. They have dragged her father-in-law-Siddappa and pushed him to the canal. 26. PW8-Girimallappa Dundappa Halangali, PW9- Arihant Shripad, PW10-Maruti Lakshmama Halangali, PW11- Vivekananda Sangappa, said to be eye-witnesses, have not supported the case of prosecution. All these witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses with the permission of the court. They have dragged her father-in-law-Siddappa and pushed him to the canal. 26. PW8-Girimallappa Dundappa Halangali, PW9- Arihant Shripad, PW10-Maruti Lakshmama Halangali, PW11- Vivekananda Sangappa, said to be eye-witnesses, have not supported the case of prosecution. All these witnesses are treated as hostile witnesses with the permission of the court. Even in their cross-examination, they have categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure which are marked as Exhibits P40 & P41. 27. PW12-Sannappa Siddappa Ganigera, is scribe of Complaint-Exhibit P1. He has deposed in his evidence that since PW1-complainant has received injuries on his hands, he was requested him to write the complaint. Accordingly, he has written the complaint as per Exhibit P1. 28. PW13-Dr. Srihari, Medical Officer, has deposed in his evidence as to the post-mortem examination of the deceased Siddappa Satyappa Teli and issuance of post-mortem report as per Exhibit P43. 29. PW14-Dr. Sanjeev P. Patil, has deposed as to the treatment extended to the injured Basappa Siddappa Teli, and Girimalla S. Teli and also as to issuance of wound certificate as per Exhibits P44 & P45. He has also deposed as to the examination of iron rod, clubs and issuance of report as per Exhibits P46 & P47. 30. PW15-S.P. Pawar, has deposed as to preparation of rough sketch as per Exhibit P48 at the request of police. 31. PW16-Basavaraj Appasab Ingale, photographer has deposed as to the photographs taken by him as per Exhibits P5 to P35. 32. PW17-Hasansab N. Momin, Police Constable, has deposed as to handing over of dead body to the legal representatives of the deceased. 33. PW18-Rajesab Rahamansab Sanganolli, PSI and PW20-K.S. Hatti CPI have deposed as to their respective investigation conducted by them. 34. PW19-R.H. Bajantri, Police Constable, has deposed as to the submission of First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 35. Post-mortem report-Exhibit P42 pertaining to the deceased Siddappa Satyappa Teli aged 65 years, reveals the time of date of Post mortem examination was done on 08 th January, 2020 between 10.30 and 11.30 am. 34. PW19-R.H. Bajantri, Police Constable, has deposed as to the submission of First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 35. Post-mortem report-Exhibit P42 pertaining to the deceased Siddappa Satyappa Teli aged 65 years, reveals the time of date of Post mortem examination was done on 08 th January, 2020 between 10.30 and 11.30 am. As per the report, the injuries inflicted are as follows: "(1) Blackish discoloration over posterior aspect at left ear measuring 2x1.5cm with sign of bleeding present, (2) Complete fracture of both tibia and fibula at upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 junction over left side (3) Blackish discoloration of skin measuring 3x3cms over fracture site (4) On dissection of blackish discoloration area over posterior aspect of left ear measuring 2x1.5cm with sigma bleeding were present On dissection: complete fracture of skull bone 1x1cm with 0.5 depth. On further dissection there was reddish discoloration of brain matter measuring 5x5cm over tempero-parietal region, with sign of fresh bleeding." 36. The Doctor has opined that the death was due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to extra cranial bleeding secondary to trauma to head, may be a heavy weapon. 37. Exhibit P43-opinion of articles (weapons), reveals that after examination of iron rod measuring 2 feet, wooden stick measuring 5.5 feet, wooden stick measuring 5 foot, another wooden stick 4 foot, the doctor has opined that the injuries mentioned in the report could have been caused by the articles examined. 38. The wound certificate-Exhibit P44 pertaining to PW1-Basappa Siddappa Teli issued by Patil Hospital, reveals that said Basappa was admitted to the Hospital with history of assault on 07 th January, 2020 at 6.00 pm at Mugalkod and he was examined on the same day at 8.45 pm and the injuries are shown as under: "(i) Fracture 9 th rib right side (ii) CLW - Right eye brow - 1cm (iii) Contusion over the back both sides, left elbow, left ankle & foot, Right calf." 39. Doctor has opined that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injuries 2 and 3 are simple in nature and the age of injury is within twelve hours. 40. Exhibit P45-wound certificate pertaining to Girimalla Siddappa Teli, reveals that he was admitted to Hospital with the history of assault on 07 th January, 2020 at 6.00 pm at Mugalkod and he was examined on the same day at 8.50 pm. 40. Exhibit P45-wound certificate pertaining to Girimalla Siddappa Teli, reveals that he was admitted to Hospital with the history of assault on 07 th January, 2020 at 6.00 pm at Mugalkod and he was examined on the same day at 8.50 pm. He has sustained the following injuries: "(i) Comminuted fracture acromion process of left scapula (ii) Contusion over right elbow, right hand, right shoulder, shoulder, back, hip left." 41. Doctor has opined that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and the age of injury is within twelve hours and the injury might have caused by hit with a hard or blunt object. 42. Exhibit P46 is the opinion pertaining to articles (weapons) issued by the Medical Officer. 43. In complaint-Exhibit P1 it is stated that the accused have used clubs, iron rod and lead ball. But subsequently, the Investigating Officer has recorded further statement of the complainant wherein the complainant has stated that out of rage he has mentioned the name of Guruling Ramappa Teli as hitting with lead ball and the same is not correct. Further, there is also no reference as to the usage of chilli-powder by the accused before commission of offence. For the first time before the Court, the witnesses have deposed as to usage of chilli-powder. Even in the statement recorded under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure , Girimalla Siddappa Teli and Shripad Siddappa Teli have not deposed anything in that regard. Only for the first time before the Court, the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused have splattered chilli-powder. 44. With regard to injuries caused to deceased Siddappa, Satyappa Teli aged 60 years is concerned, in the complaint-Exhibit P1, it is stated that the deceased has received injuries on backside of his left ear and a grievous injury on the left leg below knee. Complainant PW1-Basappa Siddappa Teli in his statement under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, has not specifically stated as to the assault by the accused, but has stated that when he reached the spot, the accused were assaulting, his father and on seeing him, Gurulingappa and Shripad Teli, accused fled the Spot. Thereafter, he has noticed fracture on the leg of his father. Further, he has deposed that Dundappa Guruling Teli, assaulted his father with club towards backside of the year. Thereafter, he has noticed fracture on the leg of his father. Further, he has deposed that Dundappa Guruling Teli, assaulted his father with club towards backside of the year. In the further statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on 8 th January 2020, he has stated that the accused Hanumantha Teli assaulted his father with iron rod below the knee, then his father fell into canal as a result, his leg got fractured. It is also recorded by the Investigating Officer that Dundappa Teli gave blue to his father towards left side of the year with a club. But during trial, PW1-Basappa Siddappa Teli has deposed that the accused dragged his father to a distance of 20 feet and all the accused assaulted his father. His father was trying to escape from the clutches of the accused and at that time accused No.1 gave blue to him with iron rod on the left side of the leg causing fracture. Then his father fell into canal. Accused No.2 two gave blow to his father towards left side of the ear with a club. His father became unconscious. During his cross-examination, he has stated that when his father fell into canal, accused No.2, gave blow to his father with a club. He has further deposed that he cannot say as to who had taken away the club and iron rod. Accused No.1 was holding MO4-iron Road and accused 2 to 4 were holding MOs1 to 3-sticks. 45. Guruling Siddappa Teli has given statement as per Exhibit P36 under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure before JMFC Court Raibagh on 11 th March 2020, in which he has stated that Mahadev Guruling Teli, Mallappa Guruling Teli, Hanumantha Guruling Teli, and Dundappa Guruling Teli have assaulted his father, but he has not whispered anything as the weapons used by the accused. He has been examined as PW4 before the Court. He has deposed that accused No.2 gave blow to his father Siddappa towards left side of the ear with a club and accused No.1 gave blow to his father with iron rod on his leg, causing fracture. 46. He has been examined as PW4 before the Court. He has deposed that accused No.2 gave blow to his father Siddappa towards left side of the ear with a club and accused No.1 gave blow to his father with iron rod on his leg, causing fracture. 46. Shripad Siddappa Teli has given his statement under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Civil Judge Raibagh as per Exhibit P37 on 11 th March 2020 in which he has stated that Guruling Siddappa Teli gave blow to his father with iron rod and on his leg causing fracture. Dundappa Guruling Teli gave blow to his father with club towards backside of his left ear. Then his father fell. Dundappa Guruling Teli has been examined before the court as PW5. He has deposed in his evidence that accused No.2 splattered chilli- powder upon his father and himself and accused dragged him and his father to a distance of 20 feet from their house. Accused No.2 gave blow to his father with iron rod on his left leg, causing fracture. Accused pulled his father to the canal located by the side of the Road, and thereafter, accused No.2 gave blow to his father with club to the left side of his ear. During his cross-examination, he has stated that his father had fallen into canal and thereafter, accused gave blow to his father with club and iron rod. 47. PW6-Kallavva Siddappa Teli, has deposed in her evidence that accused No.2 gave blow to her husband with club on his head, causing bleeding injury. Accused No.1 gave blue to her husband on his left leg and caused fracture. Further, accused dragged her husband and pulled him into the canal. She has further deposed that her husband has received injuries on his head and left leg. During her cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot say the name of the accused who has drugged her husband by holding his leg. Further, she has deposed that her husband has no abrasions on his body and the place of dragging her husband was asphalt road. Further, she has stated that she has not witnessed as to who was holding the clubs and iron rod. 48. Further, she has deposed that her husband has no abrasions on his body and the place of dragging her husband was asphalt road. Further, she has stated that she has not witnessed as to who was holding the clubs and iron rod. 48. PW7-Gangadhar Basappa Teli, wife of CW1- complainant, has deposed that accused No.1 gave blow to the deceased Siddappa with iron rod on the left side of his head, and also to left leg causing its fracture, and dragged her father- in-law and pushed him into the canal. 49. PW 13-Dr. Srihari, who has conducted postmortem on the deceased, has deposed as to the postmortem report Exhibit P42. During his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that the police have sent the inquest panchanama along with a request to conduct postmortem examination of the deceased. Further, he has admitted that as per inquest panchanama, there are injuries near ear and leg and there was contusion near ear. But he has not mentioned the same in the postmortem report. He has also not mentioned the measurement of the wound in the postmortem report. Further, he has admitted that there are chances of fracture of fibula and tibia in motor vehicle accident cases, so also, if a person falls on a hard surface, then also there are possibilities of fracture of fibula and tibia. He has also admitted that if a person falls upside down, there is possibility of getting hurt near his ear. The inquest panchanama-Exhibit P13 reveals that the deceased received injuries towards left side of the ear, measuring 2 x 1.5 cm. with contusion. Except this, there were no cut injuries and even below the knee also there were no cut injuries. In Exhibit P42-postmortem report, the injuries shown are as under: "Blackish discoloration of skin around left ear 2x1.5cm with sign of bleeding. on dissection there was complete fracture of skull bone measuring 1x1cm with 0.5 depth. On further dissection there was reddish discoloration of brain matter measuring 5x5cm over tempero-parietal region. Complete fracture of both tibia and fibula upper 2/3 rd and lower 1/3 rd junction over left leg with blackish discoloration of skin over fracture site measuring 3x3cm with sign of trauma." 50. In sub-column (7) of Column V, it is stated as under: "[V] Abdomen (1) Wall & Peritoneum - Normal. (2) Mouth, Pharynx & Oesophagus - Normal. Complete fracture of both tibia and fibula upper 2/3 rd and lower 1/3 rd junction over left leg with blackish discoloration of skin over fracture site measuring 3x3cm with sign of trauma." 50. In sub-column (7) of Column V, it is stated as under: "[V] Abdomen (1) Wall & Peritoneum - Normal. (2) Mouth, Pharynx & Oesophagus - Normal. (3) Stomach & its contents - food content was present, partially digested food particle (4) Small & Large Intestine & contents - Normal (5) Liver - Normal. (6) Spleen - Normal. (7) Any other information - Normal. (cid:1) Complete fracture of both tibia and fibula at upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 junction over left leg (cid:1) Blackish discoloration of skin / over fracture site meaning 3cmx3cm" 51. The Doctor has opined that the death is due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to bleeding secondary to trauma may be by a heavy weapon. Exhibits P11 & P12-Photos of the deceased, reveal that there are cut injuries towards backside of the left ear. Exhibit P13-spot panchanama dated 08 th January 2020 reveals that there is a canal towards the Southern side of the road, but the height and width of the canal is not measured by the Investigating Officer. Even the investigating officer has not taken the photo of the canal to show the nature and type of the canal, though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused pushed the deceased into canal. 52. With regard to injuries caused to PW1-Basappa Siddappa Teli is concerned, the prosecution has produced wound certificate which is marked as Exhibit P44, in which it is stated that the injured was admitted to the hospital with the history of assault at Mugalkod near Unni Basaveshwara Thot on 07 th January 2020. He was examined by the doctor on the same day at 8:40 PM. Doctor has found the following injuries on the injured.: "(i) Fracture 9 th rib right side (ii) CLW - Right eye brow - 1cm (iii) Contusions over the back both sides, left elbow left ankle & foot, right calf" 53. The Doctor has opined that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injuries No.2 & 3 are simple in nature and the age of injury within twelve hours. 54. The Doctor has opined that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injuries No.2 & 3 are simple in nature and the age of injury within twelve hours. 54. In Exhibit P1-Complaint, Basappa Siddappa Teli has stated that the accused have assaulted them with iron rod, lead ball and club and he has received injuries on backside of his right eye and back. PW1 has given statement under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure as per Exhibit P2 in which she has stated that accused Dundappa Guruling Teli gave blow to him on his both legs and to his abdomen. During the trial, PW1 has deposed that accused No.2 gave blow to him with club on his both legs and right rib and right eye causing bleeding injuries. 55. With regard to injuries caused to PW4-Girmalla Siddappa Teli is concerned, prosecution has produced Exhibit P45 issued by Patil Hospital which reveals that on 07 th January 2020, injured was admitted to the hospital with the history of assault at 6:30 PM near Unni Basaveshwara Thot. Doctor has examined the injured on the same day and found the following injuries: "(i) Comminuted fracture acromion process of left scapula (ii) Contusions over Right elbow, Right hand, Right shoulder, Left shoulder, back, hip left" 56. Doctor has opined that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and the age of the injury is within twelve hours. In the statement given under Section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure he has stated that when he came to rescue his father, the accused have assaulted him. During the trial, this injured examined as PW4 wherein he has deposed that accused No.3 gave blow to him with club on his both shoulders. 57. On a careful and meticulous examination of the entire evidence on record along with prosecution papers, it is crystal clear that there is no consistent, cogent or corroborative evidence as to the injuries caused to the deceased and the weapons used by the accused. Though there are no cut injuries as per inquest panchanama, the photos of the deceased reveal that there are cut injuries near left side of the ear. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused have assaulted the deceased with a sharp-edged object on the backside of his left ear. Though there are no cut injuries as per inquest panchanama, the photos of the deceased reveal that there are cut injuries near left side of the ear. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused have assaulted the deceased with a sharp-edged object on the backside of his left ear. The inquest panchanama, which was conducted prior to postmortem examination of the deceased, reveals that there are no cut injuries near left side of the ear or on other parts of the body. However, in the postmortem report and in evidence of PW13, it is stated that there is wound measuring 2 x 1.5 cm seen near the backside of the ear. PW13-Doctor has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned the contusion found near the year in postmortem report. Exhibit P1 complaint reveals that the accused used lead ball to assault the deceased. Subsequently, the Investigating officer has recorded the further statement in which it is mentioned that out of rage, the complainant has mentioned that accused have used lead ball. This inconsistent evidence of the prosecution witness and also inconsistent medical evidence, will create doubt about the alleged act of the accused as alleged by the prosecution. Admittedly, CW5 called 108 Ambulance and the injured were took in the ambulance. It is stated that at 7:30 PM when ambulance was near Harugeri, Siddappa Satyappa Teli breathed his last. On whose instance the ambulance was called, whether the history of assault was disclosed to the hospital authority while calling for ambulance, is neither mentioned in the complaint nor investigated by the Investigating officer. It is also necessary to note that in complaint-Exhibit P1 it is stated that PW1 that the dead body of Siddappa Satyappa Teli was kept in Government Hospital and they went to Patil Hospital to take treatment. Though the injured PW1 and PW4 had visited the Government Hospital to keep the dead body, they have not taken the treatment in the government hospital, but took treatment in a private hospital at Harugeri. The reason for not taking the treatment by the injured PW1 and PW4 in the Government Hospital has not been explained by the prosecution. The name of the accused who have assaulted PW1 and PW4 and the weapons used for the commission of offence, is also not disclosed in the wound certificate. 58. The reason for not taking the treatment by the injured PW1 and PW4 in the Government Hospital has not been explained by the prosecution. The name of the accused who have assaulted PW1 and PW4 and the weapons used for the commission of offence, is also not disclosed in the wound certificate. 58. PW14-Dr Sanjeev who has treated the injured has also not disclosed the names of the accused who have assaulted the injured and also the weapons used for commission of offence. Though PW1 & PW4 have been admitted to Patil Hospital with the history of assault, PW14-Medical officer has not registered the same as medical legal case and intimated to police. Even identification marks which are required to be mentioned in the wound certificate also not seen in the wound certificate. 59. With regard to injury of Basappa Siddappa Teli, PW14-Doctor, has deposed that the right side of ninth rib is fractured and has issued certificate as per Exhibit P44. Neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of PW1, the complainant has disclosed as to the accused assaulting him on the right side ninth rib. Even in the statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure , PW1 has not disclosed regarding the fracture of right side ninth rib. This inconsistent evidence of the material witnesses will create doubt as to the alleged act of the accused. 60. The accused have set up defence though, admittedly, there is a dispute between complainant and the accused pertaining to the land of the accused, which is abutting to the land of the complainant and in this regard, Original Suit No.695 of 2016 is also pending before Raibagh Court. 61. PW1, PW4 and deceased were a travelling on a motorcycle from Terdal to their house. While proceeding on motorcycle, the rider of the motorcycle lost control and they had a fall, but the complainant has lodged a false case with due deliberation. 62. Further, when the body of the deceased Siddappa Satyappa Teli was indeed kept in the Government Hospital, the injured without taking treatment in Government Hospital have taken treatment in Patil Hospital. The reason behind it is also not explained by the prosecution. 63. 62. Further, when the body of the deceased Siddappa Satyappa Teli was indeed kept in the Government Hospital, the injured without taking treatment in Government Hospital have taken treatment in Patil Hospital. The reason behind it is also not explained by the prosecution. 63. The external injuries shown in the postmortem report and the external injuries shown in the inquest Panchama; the usage of lead ball for commission of offence at the time of filing complaint and immediately changing of the version by PW1 regarding usage of lead ball for commission of offence; improvising of the statement during the trial as to splattering of chilli-powder for the first time before the court; the admission of the Medical officer that if a person falls from the motorcycle, there are chances of injury to fibula and tibia and also injury to skull upon falling on a hard or on a rough surface all cannot be lost sight of. Further PW14-Dr. Sanjeev Patil has clearly admitted in page 4 of the deposition that In the cases where a motorcycle is being ridden with two pillion riders, the possibility rider losing the control over the motorcycle also cannot be ruled out. In addition to this, the investigating officer himself has recorded the further statement of complainant-PW1 as to modification of original complaint wherein in the further statement it is stated that out of rage he has mentioned the name of Gurling Ramappa Teli, had hit his father with lead ball and the same is not correct and he himself has admitted that out of rage he has mentioned the presence of Guruling Ramappa Teli with lead ball. So also, introduction of chilli-powder in the further statement. This further statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating officer, only creates doubt about the alleged act of the accused. The conduct and testimony of PW1 cannot be believed, as the further statement of PW1 itself falsify the alleged act of the accused. The further statement is quite unnatural. No prudent person will take the name unnecessarily, without any ill-intention as to usage of lead ball on a elderly person. The clear admission of PW14-Dr. The conduct and testimony of PW1 cannot be believed, as the further statement of PW1 itself falsify the alleged act of the accused. The further statement is quite unnatural. No prudent person will take the name unnecessarily, without any ill-intention as to usage of lead ball on a elderly person. The clear admission of PW14-Dr. Sanjeev Patil and aforestated inconsistent evidence of interested testimony of prosecution witnesses would only show that the deceased died due to motorcycle accident and other injured have sustained injuries in the said accident and had fallen in the canal while proceeding on the motorcycle. 64. In the case on hand, the accused No.5-Guruling Ramappa Teli, was aged 65 years. Further, though the accused were four in number, it is mentioned as five. This inconsistent statement/further improvement, modification will create doubt in the minds of the Court as to the alleged act of the accused and also it shows that interested prosecution witnesses have exaggeratedly deposed before the court. Therefore, the interested testimony of the prosecution witness cannot be believed. 65. With regard to spot of crime is concerned, it is alleged in the chargesheet that the alleged incident took place on 07 th January 2020 at 6:20 pm in the land situated in survey number 344/7. As per Exhibit P13-Spot mahazar reveals that the alleged murder was committed at the backyard of the house of the deceased of Mugalkod village. The wound certificate of the injured PW1 & PW4 reveals that the incident took place near Unni Basaveshwara Thot of Mugalkod village. PW13-Doctor who has treated the injured, has issued the wound certificate and also admitted his evidence that the injured have stated before him that the accident took place near Unni Basaveshwar Thot. This admission made by the treated doctor and the contents of wound certificate, will falsify the contents of Exhibit P1-complaint and evidence of interested testimony of PWs 1 & 4 to 7. If really, the accused have assaulted the deceased Siddappa and PW1 & PW4 injured, then PWs1 & 4 ought to have disclosed the name of the accused and weapons used for commission of offence, and also the place and time of the incident as near the house of the deceased Siddappa in Mugalkod village. If really, the accused have assaulted the deceased Siddappa and PW1 & PW4 injured, then PWs1 & 4 ought to have disclosed the name of the accused and weapons used for commission of offence, and also the place and time of the incident as near the house of the deceased Siddappa in Mugalkod village. Instead of that PWs1 & 4 by giving the history of assault, they have stated the place of incident near Unni Basaveshwara Thot, and actually, shave admitted to the hospital with history of accident, as admitted by PWs1 & 4. 66. The independent witnesses PWs8 to 11, have not supported the case of prosecution. Even in their cross- examination, they have clearly stated that they do not know as to how Siddappa Satyappa Teli died and they have not given any statement to the police that they have witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased Siddappa. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to elicit any favourable answers from these independent witnesses. 67. Further, it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that more than hundred people were gathered near the place of incident, but the same is not disclosed in the complaint-Exhibit P1. However, the prosecution has examined four independent fitness who have not supported its case. It is also necessary to mention here that Exhibit D1 reveals that the accused No.2 is working as teacher in Kittur Rani Chennamma School, Kappalaguddi. Exhibit D1 is the notice issued by the Headmaster to accused No.2 calling explanation as to why he has not attended the school from 8 th January 2020. This is a public document and the same is not disputed by the other side. The said document reveals that accused No.2 was in the school and on the particular date and time. Taking into consideration, Exhibit D1 and the lapses committed by the prosecution, so also, the inconsistence evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the previous enmity between the complainant and accused, the probability of false implication of accused No.2 who was in the school on the relevant date and time of incident cannot be discarded. 68. Upon a meticulous and comprehensive re-evaluation, re-examination, and reconsideration of the entire body of evidence available on record, it becomes evidently clear that the prosecution's case is riddled with several material inconsistencies, contradictions, and procedural irregularities that cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of the allegations levelled against the accused. 68. Upon a meticulous and comprehensive re-evaluation, re-examination, and reconsideration of the entire body of evidence available on record, it becomes evidently clear that the prosecution's case is riddled with several material inconsistencies, contradictions, and procedural irregularities that cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of the allegations levelled against the accused. A close scrutiny reveals that the complaint was lodged nearly nine hours after the occurrence of the alleged incident, wherein one Siddappa Satyappa Teli lost his life in a motor vehicle accident and PWs.1 and 4 are said to have sustained injuries. Further, although the FIR is stated to have been dispatched on 07 th January, 2020 at 22:15 hours, it reached the jurisdictional Court only at 6:00 a.m. on 08 th January, 2020. This delay, in both lodging the complaint and forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, is neither explained satisfactorily nor supported by any cogent material, thereby raising serious doubts about the promptness and genuineness of the prosecution's version. 69. It is further noticed that the name of one Guruling Ramappa Teli finds mention at the inception in the FIR but was subsequently deleted without any plausible explanation. Additionally, the initial complaint (Exhibit P1) refers to the use of a lead ball as the weapon of offence, yet this aspect was omitted in the subsequent report, without clarification. Likewise, there is no reference to the alleged use of chilli powder at the time of the commission of the offence in the initial complaint, but such a claim appears only at a later stage, during the recording of the further statement of witnesses suggesting an attempt at afterthought and embellishment. 70. Moreover, there are glaring inconsistencies between the injuries described in Exhibit P1, those reflected in the inquest panchanama, the postmortem report of the deceased, and the wound certificates of PWs.1 and 4. Such discrepancies materially affect the credibility of the medical evidence. The testimony of the injured witnesses, who are closely related and hence interested, is not corroborated by any disinterested or independent witnesses, despite the incident allegedly having occurred in a public place. The prosecution has also failed to produce any independent eyewitnesses, which further undermines its case. 71. Added to this is the admitted existence of prior enmity between the complainant party and the accused with regard to a disputed pathway and pending civil litigation. The prosecution has also failed to produce any independent eyewitnesses, which further undermines its case. 71. Added to this is the admitted existence of prior enmity between the complainant party and the accused with regard to a disputed pathway and pending civil litigation. This pre-existing animosity creates a strong possibility of false implication. The improvements and modifications in the versions of witnesses during the trial, coupled with material omissions and contradictions, cumulatively erode the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case. 72. In light of the aforesaid infirmities, and having regard to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence which mandate that the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, we are of the considered opinion that the benefit of doubt must necessarily enure to the accused. The trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in the correct legal perspective and has overlooked significant discrepancies which go to the root of the matter. Hence, the findings recorded by the trial court warrant interference. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 73. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER : 1. Appeal is allowed; 2. Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07 th February, 2022 passed in Sessions Case No.192 of 2020 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi, is set aside; 3. Accused are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 326, 504, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused may be refunded to them; 4. Registry to send the intimation to the concerned Jail Superintendent to release the accused 1 & 3 forthwith, if they are not involved or required in any other case; 5. Registry to send copy of this judgment along with the trial Court records to the concerned Court.