JUDGMENT : Rajesh Rai K, J. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2017 in Special Case No.1/2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Judge’), whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’ for short). 2. The abridged facts of the case of prosecution is that, on 23.11.2010, at about 10:00 a.m., when the complainant (PW5) along with his family members were cutting paddy crop in their land bearing Sy.No.54 situated at Kesarolli village of Haliyal Taluk, the accused persons trespassed the said land by forming an unlawful assembly and abused the complainant and his family members by mentioning their caste and threatened them to leave the place or else they will do away their life. As such, PW5 lodged a complaint before the Haliyal Police on the same day i.e. on 23.11.2010 as per Ex.P6. On the strength of Ex.P6, PW2-the then ASI of the said Police Station registered FIR in Crime No.190/2010 against the respondents-accused as per Ex.P7 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, PW17 conducted further investigation by drawing relevant mahazars, recorded statements of the witnesses and on obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(x) of the SC/ST Act, before the learned Special Judge. After securing the presence of the accused, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges for the aforesaid offences and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. The accused neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 5. The accused neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 5. I have heard Smt. Girija S Hiremath, the learned HCPG for the State and Sri. Shivakumar S Badawadagi, learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 6. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that the judgment challenged in this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of material witnesses in a right perspective. She contended that the complainant- PW5 and injured eyewitnesses i.e. PW7 to PW12 have categorically deposed that on the date of incident, when all of them were in the land of PW5, the accused persons trespassed the said land by holding deadly weapons and thereafter dragged the complainant and PWs.7 to 12 from the land by causing injuries on them. Further, the accused also abused them by mentioning their caste. Despite, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them based on surmises and conjunctures. She also contended that the oral testimony of all these witnesses clearly corroborates the medical evidence of PW1-Doctor and also the wound certificates Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences they are charged. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge. 7. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused contended that the learned Special Judge, after meticulously examining the evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that there are much contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PW5, PW7 to PW12, the injured witnesses, which go to the root of the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of complainant (PW5) is quite contrary to Ex.P6-complaint lodged by him. In the complaint he stated that the accused by trespassing his land, made an attempt to assault them. However, he deposed in his evidence that the accused assaulted them. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of complainant (PW5) is quite contrary to Ex.P6-complaint lodged by him. In the complaint he stated that the accused by trespassing his land, made an attempt to assault them. However, he deposed in his evidence that the accused assaulted them. Further there was a civil dispute between the grandmother of PW5 and the accused No.4 in respect of landed property in O.S.No.40/2010 and there was an injunction order oeprating against PW5 and PW8, as such, a false complaint was lodged by PW5 by giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. This aspect of the matter is rightly appreciated by the learned Special Judge and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for the respondents-accused, and on perusal of the entire materials available on record, the points that would surface for my consideration are: i) Whether the judgment challenged in this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality? ii) Whether the learned Special Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(x) of the SC/ST Act? 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP as well as the learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the materials on record. 10. It could be gathered from records, PW5-complainant has lodged the complaint against the accused before the Haliyal Police on 23.11.2010 as per Ex.P6 alleging that when he and his family members were in their field, the accused trespassed their field and abused them by mentioning their caste and attempted to assault them with deadly weapons. However, at the time of filing of the charge sheet, the investigating officer obtained wound certificates of PW5 and PWs.9 to 12 as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Further, the prosecution examined PW1-Doctor, who stated that on 23.11.2010 at about 4:00 p.m., five persons visited the hospital and took first-aid treatment for the injuries they sustained. The Ex.P6-complaint was lodged by PW5 on the same day i.e. on 23.11.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. Strangely, the PW5 has not mentioned about the injury sustained either by himself or by PW9 to 12. The Ex.P6-complaint was lodged by PW5 on the same day i.e. on 23.11.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. Strangely, the PW5 has not mentioned about the injury sustained either by himself or by PW9 to 12. Even there is no MLC available on record to show that PW5 and other injured witnesses have visited the hospital for treatment with the history of assault. Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of the injured witnesses i.e. PW5, PW7 to PW12, on careful perusal of their evidence, all of them have made omnibus allegations against accused that they abused them by mentioning their caste and assaulted them with deadly weapons. As discussed supra, the evidence of these witnesses also goes contrary to Ex.P6-complaint lodged at the earliest point of time by PW5. Further, in the cross-examination of PW5 and PW7 to 12, all of them have categorically given an admission that there was a civil dispute between the grandmother of the complainant and accused No.4-Anand and an injunction order operating against them in O.S.No.40/2010 not to interfere in the property bearing Survey No.54, measuring 8 Acres of Haliyal village, i.e., the place of incident. In such circumstance, there arises a doubt in the version of PW5-complainant and other injured witnesses who are none than the interested witnesses about the alleged incident. There is no other independent corroborative piece of evidence available on record to believe the testimony of PW5 and PW7 to 12. Further, PW6, PW8 and PW14 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW15 is an independent witness, also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, as admitted by the PW5, the incident said to have taken place in his field, which is not a public place, as such it could be gathered, the alleged act of the accused was not within the public view to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to place on record cogent evidence to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Moreover, this is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is a settled position of law by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court that in an acquittal judgment, if the Trial Court has taken a plausible view, then the Appellate Court shall not interfere with such judgment of acquittal. Moreover, this is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is a settled position of law by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court that in an acquittal judgment, if the Trial Court has taken a plausible view, then the Appellate Court shall not interfere with such judgment of acquittal. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the negative and point No.(ii) in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal stands dismissed