- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1995 OF 2019 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAPRAKASHA @ PRAKASHA S/O YOGESHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O KUVEMPU NAGARA, SHANKARAGHATTA, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577 301. 2. KUMARA S/O DOMRI KUMARA S/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: CAR DRIVER, R/O KUVEMPU NAGARA, SHANKARAGHATTA, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577 301. 3. MANU S/O MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O MALENAHALLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. 4. PALI @ PALAKSHAPPA S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 R/O MALENAHALLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. 5. M V VISHWANATH S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O MALENAHALLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASAD B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE, BHADRAVATHI, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25.09.2019, PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN SPL.(A)CASE NO.59/2013, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1,2,3,4 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143 AND 323 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ACCUSED NO.8 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144 AND 324 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.09.2019 passed in Spl.(A) Case No.59/2013 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (for short 'the trial Court). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Dy.S.P, Bhadravathi Sub Division has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 144, 504, 323, 324, 326, 506(2) and 307 r/w section 149 of IPC and under sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, CWs.1 to 4 belong to Scheduled Caste community and accused belong - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 to Kuruba and Lingayath communities. On 23.03.2013 at 09.00 p.m. at Malenahalli Village, when the complainant was near the house of CW2, all the accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, picked up quarrel with the complainant, abused the complainant in filthy language and being aware that CW1 to CW4 being the members of the Scheduled Caste community, abused CW1 referring to his caste such as Lambani Sulemagane and assaulted him with stick. The accused No.8 has assaulted the complainant with chopper on the backside portion of his head and attempted to kill the complainant. It is further alleged that accused No.1 had shown the chopper and threatened the complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the alleged offences. 5. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in Special (A) Case No.59/2013. All the accused appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. 6. Upon hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the alleged commission of offences. Same was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all 17 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 17. Twenty documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P20 and five material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 5. 8. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. While recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, four documents were marked as Exhibits D1 to D4 on behalf of the accused. 9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 for the offence under Sections 326, 307, 504 and 506(2) r/w section 149 of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 143 and 323 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. 10. Further, the accused No.8 is found guilty of the offence under Section 143, 144 and 324 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act and the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.5 to 7, 9 and 10 for commission of alleged offences under Sections 143, 144, 324, 326, 307, 504, 323 and 506(2) r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act. 11. The trial Court has passed a sentence to accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 143 r/w 149 of IPC. Further, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC and accused No.8 is sentenced to undergo - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 144 r/w 149 of IPC and accused No.8 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 of IPC. Further, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 have preferred this appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 323 and 324 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act. 13. PWs.6, 12, 13 and 14 have been examined by Sub- Inspector but as per rule, it is only within the domain of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 the Dy.S.P. Hence this has caused great injustice to the appellants. This aspect is not considered by the trial Court. 14. PW1 has made omnibus statement and has not specifically attributed any role against any of the appellants, hence convicting the appellants on an omnibus statement is highly unsustainable. 15. Exhibits D1 to 3, the evidence of PW3 is highly inconsistent and unreliable. This aspect is ignored by the trial court. 16. Exhibit P1 is the complaint which does not disclose any caste based abuse. Hence improved version of PW1 ought not to have been accepted by the trial court. This aspect is not appreciated by the trial court. There is one day delay in filing the complaint. This delay is not explained by the prosecution. This delay creates a doubt on the prosecution. This aspect is ignored by the trial court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 17. PWs.1 to 4 are all interested relative witness, there is political rivalry. In this background the evidence ought to have been appreciated, and this aspect is not appreciated by the trial court. 18. The appellant submits that the incident took place in dark hours. None of the witnesses have identified the accused and the test identification parade is not conducted. The prosecution has failed to prove that there existed a light on the spot. Though there is no cogent and convincing evidence before the trial Court, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8, which is not sustainable under law. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. 19. As against this, Sri M Diwakar Maddur, the learned High Court Government Pleader, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 20. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 for the offence punishable under sections 141, 143, 144, 504, 323, 324, 326, 506(2) and 307 r/w section 149 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989? (2) What order? 21. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The genesis of the case arose on the basis of the complaint filed by PW1 as per Exhibit P1. In Exhibit P1, PW1-Eshwara Naik has stated as under: "£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23/03/13 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 9-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ¼ÉãÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ UÀAVèsÁ¬ÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ T.V. £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £ÉqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ. £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ¤AwzÀÝgÀÄ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ £ÀªÀÄä ಾ ಮದವಾದ ವ¥Àæಾಶ, zÉÆ«Äæ ಕುಾರ, ಮನು  ªÀĺÉñÀégÀ¥Àà, ಾ  F±ÀégÀ, ಬಸವಾಜ  GdÓ£À¥Àà, ZÀAzÀæ @ VAr ZÀAzÀæ  PÀÄ¥ÀàtÚ ¯ÉÃmï  «ÃgÀ¨sÀzÀæ¥Àà, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 «±ÀégÀ  §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà, ಸೕ!  F±ÀégÀ¥Àà ಇವರುಗಳ% ಮತು' ಬು'ಾ( s/o ಅಂಗ. ¹zÀÝgÁªÀÄ¥Ààರವರು, ಎರಡು ಾರು 2ಾಗೂ ಒಂದು ಆ5ೋದ ಬಂದು ಇ7ದು, ಗುಂಪ9 ಕ:;ೊಂಡು, <ಾವ9=ೋ ಹ?ೆಯ zÉéõÀªÀ¤ßlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, ನನೆ zÉÆuÉÚಗ7ಂದ @ೆABನ CೕDೆ 2ೊEೆದು ¸ÀƼÉêÀÄUÀ£Éà ¤£Àß FಾGನ ಹಡ ಎಂತ @ೈದುzÀಲ =ೆ JಶKLಾಥ @JಶK s/o ಬಸವಾಜ FvÀ£ÀÄ §AzÀÄ ಮNOAಂದ ತDೆಯ PಂQಾಗೆR 2ೊEೆದು QಾS ಾಯವನುBಂಟು ಾ. ಸಂಕಟಕರUಾದ PಂVೆ ಆಗುವ Sೕ ರಕ'UÁAiÀÄ ಪ.Wದನು. ಆಗ .ಸಲು ಬಂದ ನಮX ಅFೆ' ಗಂY@ಾGಗೂ CೕಲRಂಡ ಎಲ ರೂ @ಾGೆ ಬಂದ 2ಾೆ ಅUಾಚ[ ಶಬ\ಗ7ಂದ @ೈದು JಶK ತನB ೈಯ P.ದುೊಂ.ದ\ ಮಚOನುB FೋSW ಇ=ೇ ಮNOAಂದ ಒಂದಲ ಒಂದು ]ವಸ AನBನುB ೊDೆ ಾಡ=ೆ ಡುವ9]ಲ ಎಂದು ^ೕವ @ೆದSೆ 2ಾ_ದನು. ಆಗ ಅDೆ ೕ ರVೆ'ಯ CೕDೆ Aಂದ\ gÀ«  ಶಂಕರLಾAiÀÄÌ, 32 ವಷa, Dೋೇ! s/o ಕೃಷc£ÁAiÀÄÌ, ವಯಸುd 38 ವಷa, Uಾಸ ನ ಸರ ಾ ಮ 2ಾಗೂ gÁd £ÁAiÀÄÌ s/o gÀ£ÀߣÁAiÀÄÌ ಇವರುಗಳ% ಬಂದು ಜಗಳ .Wದರು. ನಂತರ CೕಲRಂಡವೆಲ ರೂ Fಾವ9 ತಂ]ದ\ ಆ5ೋ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ಾರುಗಳ ಕು7ತು 2ೊರಟು 2ೋದರು. ಆ5ೋ ಮತು' PÁgÀÄಗಳನುB Lೋ.ದೆ ಗುರುಸುFೆ'ೕLೆ. ನನೆ ತುಂ@ಾ QಾS ಾಯUಾY ಸಂಕಟಕರ PಂVೆ ಅನುಭJಸು'ದ\Sಂದ ನನB ಪB ಲFಾ@ಾG N_Fೆdೆ 108 Uಾಹನದ ªÉÄUÁ£À ಆಸfFೆ ೆ ತಂದು =ಾಖಲು ಾ.ದರು. ಆದುದSಂದ CೕಲRಂಡವರ CೕDೆ ಕ ಮ ಜರುYಸಲು ೋS=ೆ." 22. Eshwar Naik who is examined before this Court as PW1, has deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused. Gangi Bai-CW2 is his mother-in-law. Preethi Bai - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 and Latha Bai are his daughters-in-law. He used to go to his mother-in-law’s house to watch TV. While he was going to his mother-in-law's house, accused who came in an auto and a car, abused him in filthy language by taking his caste and assaulted him. The accused abused him by referring the caste Sukali Lambani and under the pretext of previous ill-will, accused assaulted him. All the accused assaulted him with Arecanut stick and Katti on his back and head. Vishwanath, Shivaprakash, Manukumar and Pali were holding Arecanut stick. Accused also kicked him with their legs and thus the complainant received blow on his head and back. Raviraj intervened and rescued him. Then, Gangi Bai, Preethi Bai and Murali came and rescued him. Then accused assaulted them also. Thereafter, accused threatened them by saying "one or the other day they will kill them". Thereafter the complainant's wife shifted the complainant to hospital in an Ambulance and as per his statement, police have recorded the same as per Exhibit - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 P1 and the complainant identified the accused who have assaulted him. 23. PW2-Murali has deposed in his evidence that CW2 is his mother, CW1 is the brother of his mother. PW3-Preethi Bai is the wife of his brother. He knows the accused. On 23.03.2013 at 09.00 p.m. when he was going to the house of his mother-in-law to watch TV, Prakasha, Kumara, Manu, Pali, Basava, Chandra, Loka, Pruthviraja, Satish, Vishwa came and, all of a sudden, the accused started to assault the complainant's brother-in-law with a club and chopper, when he was outside of his house. Vishwa gave blow to PW1 with chopper. Prakasha, Kumara, Manu and Pali assaulted PW1 with club. PW1 sustained bleeding injuries on his head. His elder brother's wife and mother came to rescue him. The accused also assaulted them and abused them as Sukali Sulemakla. 24. The accused Vishwa threatened them by showing chopper stating that one or the other day he will kill PW1. Under the pretext of previous enmity, accused have - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 assaulted them. He sustained injuries on his back. His mother and his brother’s wife also sustained injuries. Then Preethi Bai and Gangi Bai shifted the complainant to Bhadravathi. The elder sister of PW1, shifted him to Shivamogga. 25. PW3-Preethi Bai has deposed in her evidence that, on 23.03.2013 at around 09.00 p.m. quarrel took place between the accused and Eshwara Naik. Eshwara Naik used to come everyday to her house for watching TV. Accordingly, on 23.03.2013 while he was coming to their house, around 09.00 p.m. the accused came in an auto and a car and assaulted PW1. By that time she was standing outside of the house. The accused were holding 4 sticks and chopper in their hands. Initially, the accused abused them by referring their caste. Accused No.8- Vishwa was holding chopper in his hand. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were holding Arecanut sticks in their hands and assaulted PW1 on his back with Arecanut sticks and also assaulted with a knife on the right side of the head. When - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 CWs.2 and 3 intervened to rescue PW1, accused abused and assaulted them with hands. The accused assaulted Murali with knife and chopper. Raja Naik and others intervened and separated the quarrel. The accused also threatened Eshwar Naik. 26. PW4-Latha Bai has deposed in her evidence that, on 23.03.2013 at 08.30 p.m. her husband went to the house of his elder sister. At around 09.00 p.m. she told her that somebody assaulted her husband and he sustained injuries. Immediately, she came to Gangi Bai's house and saw the injuries sustained by her husband. Then her husband was shifted to hospital in Ambulance. Gangi Bai, Preethi Bai, Murali have also sustained injuries. 27. PW5-Mahalinga said to be attested to the Ex.P6- Mahazar, has not supported the case of prosecution. 28. PW6-Ravikumar, PW7-Annadorai, PW8-Krupa, PW14- Raja Naik, said to be the eye witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses and cross-examined by - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 the prosecution. Even during their cross-examination, all the above witnesses have categorically denied the statements said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which are marked as Exhibits P7 to P9 and Exhibit P16. 29. PW9-Nafeesa Begum has deposed as to the issuance of caste certificate of the accused and complainant as per Exhibit P10. 30. PW10-Dr. Kavitha has deposed as to the examination of the injured Gangi Bai, Murali, Preethi Bai and issuance of Exhibits P11 to P13 Wound certificates. 31. PW11-Dr.G.B.Patil has deposed as to the examination of the injured Eshwara Naik and issuance of wound certificate Exhibit P15. 32. PW12-Gangi Bai has deposed in her evidence that, around 3 years ago, one day Eshwara Naik came to her house to watch TV. While coming to her house, accused assaulted him. The accused came in a car and auto. The - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 accused assaulted Eshwara Naik with Arecanut stick. The accused also abused and threatened them. The accused assaulted Eshwara Naik. Accused Pruthviraja gave blow to Eshwara Naik on his head. Then Preethi Bai and Murali intervened to rescue Eshwara Naik. Then the accused also assaulted them. She has received blow on her waist. Then she was shifted to Bhadravati Hospital in an Ambulance. Under the pretext of previous enmity, accused have assaulted them. 33. PW13-Lokesha said to be the eye-witness, has deposed in his evidence that on 13.03.2013 at 08.30 p.m. he was returning to his village along with Ravi Naik, the accused Shiva Prakasha and his followers assaulted to Eshwara Naik near Gangibai's house. Vishwa gave blow to Eshwara Naik on his back with katthi, rest of them assaulted him with club and accused threatened him that they will kill him and also abused him in filthy language by referring their caste. He intervened to separate the quarrel. He do not know the reason for the quarrel. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 34. PW15-Lakshmi Narayanappa, ASI, PW16-T.Sridhara and PW17-Rama Naik have deposed as to their respective investigation. 35. On careful examination of the entire materials on record, it is clear that on the basis of the complaint filed by PW1 as per Exhibit P1, the concerned Police have registered the case in Crime No.85/2013 for the offence under Sections 141, 143, 144, 504, 326, 506(2) r/w 149 of IPC and submitted FIR to the Court. At the time of filing the complaint, the Investigating Officer has not inserted the penal provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. However, after investigation, the IO has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989. 36. PW1 has not whispered anything as to why he has not mentioned in the complaint as to abusing him in filthy language by referring their caste. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not consistent to the contents - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 of Exhibit P1. Only at the time of filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has inserted the penal provisions under sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. The trial court has acquitted the accused for the offence under 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. 37. There is no evidence to show that the accused have abused PW1 in public. PW1 was not abused by the accused in presence of public view. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KESHAW MAHTO @ KESHAW KUMAR MAHTO v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, wherein it is observed that, to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) merely abusing a member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes would not be enough. But at the same time, saying caste name would also not constitute an offence. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 38. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any sufficient evidence to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, which is not sustainable under law. 39. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 143, 144 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, read as under: "Essential ingredients of Section 143: (a) Essential ingredients of Section 141:- Following are the essentials of an offence under Section 141: (i) That there was an assembly of five or more persons; (ii) The assembly must have one of the five objects given in Section 141; (iii) There must be commonality of object amongst all members; - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 (iv) The numbers assembled knowingly or continued to join (remain in) the assembly. Essential ingredients of Section 144:- (a) Essential Ingredients:- The following are the essentials of an offence of rioting: (i) That the accused persons, being five or more in number, formed an unlawful assembly. (ii) That they were animated by a common object. (iii) That force or violence was used by the unlawful assembly or any member of it in prosecution of the common object. Essential ingredients of Section 149:- (a) Essential Ingredients of Section:- Essential ingredients of Section 149 are as following: (1) that one should be a member of an unlawful assembly, (2) that in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, an offence should be committed by a member of that unlawful assembly, and (3) that the offence should be of such a nature that the members of that assembly knew the offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object." 40. With regard to the offence under Sections 323, 324 are concerned, the evidence of PW4-Latha Bai who is an - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 hear-say witness and not an eye-witness. PW1 to PW3, PW12 and PW13 have deposed as to the assault made by the accused. The evidence of these material witnesses are not consistent to the contents of Exhibit P1. 41. Exhibit P11 is the wound certificate pertaining to Gangibai, in which it is stated that Gangibai came to the hospital with the history of assault on 23.03.2013 at 8.30 p.m. by Prakasha and she has sustained injuries, pain and tenderness in her lower back. 42. Exhibit P12 is the wound certificate pertaining to Murali, which reveals that he came to the hospital with the history of assault on 23.03.2013 at 08.30 p.m. in the house by Prakash, by using knife and he has sustained injuries as cut inside the wound on the left side of the scapula 4 cm X 1/2 cm. 43. Exhibit P13 is the wound certificate pertaining to Preethi, which reveals that she came to the hospital on 23.03.2013 at 8.30 p.m. in the house of Prakasha. she has sustained injuries, pain and tenderness in lower back. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 The doctor has opined that all injuries shown in Exhibit P11 to Exhibit P13 are simple in nature. 44. Exhibit P15 is the wound certificate pertaining to Eshwar Naik, in which it is stated that he came to the hospital with history of assault by Prakasha and others and has sustained Lacerated wound on the right side head occipital region 3 x ¾ x ½ cm and pain in the neck. According to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru, injury No.1 is grievous in nature and other is simple in nature. 45. In Exhibit P1 the complainant-PW1 has shown all the names of accused Nos. 1 to 10. He has not disclosed the name of all the accused before the Medical Officer. Even other injured i.e., Gangibai, Murali and Preetibai have also not disclosed the names of all the accused before the Medical Officer. In the wound certificate, the name of Prakasha is only shown. The names of the weapons used for the commission of offence also not disclosed in the wound certificate. Admittedly, there is a previous enmity - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 between the accused and the complainant. The intention of the accused is also not disclosed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 46. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, convincing, clinching, corroborative, trustworthy evidence before the Court to convict the accused. Since there is no consistency in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses, which are not corroborated by the independent witnesses, the case of the prosecution will create reasonable doubt as to the act of the accused. In view of principle of Criminal law, benefit of doubt shall go to the accused. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused for the alleged commission of offences. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative. Regarding Point No.2: 47. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 ORDER i) Appeal is allowed; ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.09.2019 passed in Special Case No.59/2013 against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, is set aside; iii) Accused No.1 to 4 and 8/appellant Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 144, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code; iv) The bail bond of the accused No.1 to 4 and 8/appellant Nos. 1 to 5 shall stand cancelled; v) The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused No.1 to 4 and 8/appellant Nos. 1 to 5 in accordance with law. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8086 CRL.A No. 1995 of 2019 Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA,KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41