JUDGMENT : (M.G. UMA, J.) The appellants in Crl.A.No.191/2014 being accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.235/2014 being accused No.3 in Spl.C.No.26/2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Chitradurga are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2014, convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, on 07.06.2011 there was a quarrel between the accused and injured while playing cricket. On the same day at about 7.30 pm, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, picked up quarrel with PW1, abused him in filthy language, referring to his caste humiliated him, and assaulted PWs1 and 2 with stone, causing injuries. Thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. The police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet for the above said offences. 3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, got marked Ex.P1 to 13, identified MO1 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, got marked Ex.P1 to 13, identified MO1 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, and sentenced them as stated above, while acquitting them for the offence punishable under Section 207 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. P.B.Umesh, learned counsel for Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.191/2014, Sri. Kalemullah Shariff, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.235/2014 and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 to 3 have assaulted PWs1 and 2 with stone with an intention to cause their death, voluntarily inflicted injuries and thereby, committed the offences. It is also contended that the accused have abused PW1 by referring to his caste with an intention to humiliate him. To prove its contention, prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1 - the injured eye-witness who filed the first information as per Ex.P1. Witness stated that he had sustained bleeding injuries as the accused have assaulted him. PW2 came to rescue him and the accused assaulted him as well. Witness has never stated that the accused have referred to his caste, abused him in order to humiliate him. In that regard, the witness was treated partially hostile. Witness stated that he had sustained bleeding injuries as the accused have assaulted him. PW2 came to rescue him and the accused assaulted him as well. Witness has never stated that the accused have referred to his caste, abused him in order to humiliate him. In that regard, the witness was treated partially hostile. When the learned prosecutor suggested that the accused has referred to his caste and abused him with an intention to humiliate, he admitted the same. It is pertinent to note that even in the first information - Ex.P1 this witness has never stated that the accused have referred to his caste, abused him with an intention to humiliate. 7. Witness states that he has sustained bleeding injuries on his head, as a result of assault and he had taken treatment as in-patient for two weeks. But as per wound certificates - Exs.P8 and 9, both the injured - PWs1 and 2 have sustained only simple injuries. PW1 during cross examination states that several persons came and assaulted him. Such assailants were 20 in number. In the first information also, the informant states that he was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and others. But it is not made clear as to who are the other persons along with accused Nos.1 to 3 who have assaulted the injured witnesses. It is pertinent to note that neither PW1 nor PW2 referred to the names of any of the accused before the Doctor who examined them. Exs.P8 and 9 are silent about the names of the assailants. 8. PW2 is the other injured witness - the brother of PW1 and he states that by the time he had gone to the spot, the accused have assaulted PW1 and he was lying on the ground. Witness states that he was also assaulted by the accused and he lost consciousness. Later he was taken to the hospital. Witness states that accused No.1 had assaulted him on his private part and that his brother PW1 sustained bleeding injuries on his head. Witness stated that he has taken treatment as in-patient for three days. Strangely this witness also does not say that the accused have committed offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act. As per the wound certificate - Ex.P9, this witness has sustained only two simple injuries. Witness stated that he has taken treatment as in-patient for three days. Strangely this witness also does not say that the accused have committed offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act. As per the wound certificate - Ex.P9, this witness has sustained only two simple injuries. During cross examination, this witness specifically states that six persons have assaulted him and his brother on the date of incident. 9. PW3 is the other eye-witness to the incident and states that PWs.1 and 2 were lying on the ground when he had gone to the spot. He never refers to the names of the assailants. He states that there were 60 persons gathered at the scene of occurrence and by the time he had gone there and that the other persons had already pacified the situation. Hence, he cannot be considered as an eye-witness. Moreover, this witness also does not say anything about commission of offence by the accused either assaulting PWs.1 and 2 or abusing them by referring to their caste. 10. PW4 is also the eye-witness as per the case made out by the prosecution, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 is the mother of PWs.1 and 2, who came to the spot at a later stage, and the mahazar witness to Ex.P4 from where MO1-stone was seized. Witness states that since about 2 to 3 months earlier to the incident, they had shifted their residence to Sadiqnagar and she was not familiar with the accused. 11. PWs.6 and 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW8 is the Tahsildar who has issued the caste certificates pertaining to PWs.1 and 2 that they belong to Adi Karnataka community. PW9 is the mahazar witness to Ex.P4, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW10 is the Doctor, who examined PWs.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P8 and 9 - the wound certificates. 12. It is pertinent to note that none of these witnesses have referred to the names of any of these accused as the assailants. Both the injured have sustained only simple injuries and there is no reference to any bleeding injuries. During cross examination, witness admits that, if the persons going on the motor cycle falls down, the injuries that are referred to in Exs.P8 and 9 could be sustained. Both the injured have sustained only simple injuries and there is no reference to any bleeding injuries. During cross examination, witness admits that, if the persons going on the motor cycle falls down, the injuries that are referred to in Exs.P8 and 9 could be sustained. That is the defence taken by accused that, the injured have sustained injuries elsewhere and filed false complaint against them. Even though the accused have not stepped into the witness box, they elicited from PW10 that, the injuries mentioned in Exs.P8 and 9 will cause if a person falls from the motor cycle. 13. From the materials on record it could be seen that, PWs1 and 2 are the injured eye-witnesses. They have exaggerated the incident in question regarding the nature of injuries sustained by them and the treatment taken in the hospital. Their version that they have sustained bleeding injuries and they have taken treatment as in-patients is in dispute. As per PW1, about 20 persons have assaulted and as per PW2, 6 persons have assaulted. PW3 gives a different version stating that, there were 60 persons. Even though, PWs.1, 2 and 5 state that, PW1 had sustained bleeding injuries, there was blood on his clothes and on the floor, the same is not proved by the prosecution nor it is the contention taken by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as serious doubt arises about the evidence led by it through the injured eye-witness. 14. It is important to note that, in the first information there is no reference to commission of offence under Special Enactment. It is only when PW1 was in witness box, it was suggested by the learned Prosecutor that he was referred to by his caste by the accused with an intention to humiliate him. But no other witnesses have whispered about the same. By considering these aspects of the matter, serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the incident as contended by the prosecution. It is the settled proposition of law that the benefit of such doubt is to be extended to the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is the settled proposition of law that the benefit of such doubt is to be extended to the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has proceeded to convict the accused for the above said offences, solely on the basis of the version of PWs1 and 2 - the injured eye-witnesses, and the other eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution ignoring the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with. 16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeals are allowed. (ii) The Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 24.02.2014 passed in Spl.C.No.26/2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Chitradurga, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, accused No.1 to 3, who are the appellants herein are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 323, 324, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. (iv) Bail bonds of the accused and that of their sureties, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused No.1 to 3 is ordered to be refunded to them on due identification after appeal period is over. Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action.