The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Siddaiah is the deceased and he belongs to scheduled caste. PWs.2 and 5 are the sons of the deceased. There was a dispute between the accused and the deceased over sharing of a tree. In that connection there were intermittent quarrels between the accused on the one part and the deceased, PWs.2 and 5 on the other part.

2. On 25.02.2008 in the morning there was a quarrel between the accused and PWs.2 and 5 and in the night the accused was claiming that the deceased belonged to a scheduled caste has become highly arrogant and that he will finish him one day. On the same day, around 8.00 p.m., the deceased was going on the outskirts of Malavalli on Mandya road along with PWs.2 and 6. As per the FIR version, the accused accosted and caused stab injuries on the deceased. PW1 is the leader of Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi. He received a phone call at 8.30 a.m. about the murder of Siddaiah on the outskirts of Malavalli towards Mandya. PW1 goes to the spot. He finds PWs.2 and 6 at the spot. PW2 refused to give complaint on the ground that he will hold Dharna. The dead body was on the road. Since PW2 was not prepared to give the complaint, PW1 lodged the complaint to the above effect narrating the said fact. PW15 has registered the complaint Ex.P1 and submitted the FIR to the Magistrate. The inquest proceedings are held the next day morning. The dead body is subjected to autopsy. The post mortem discloses that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of cutthroat injuries. The accused is arrested. The knife used for committing the murder is discovered at his voluntary instance. The blood stained clothing and blood stained knife were sent to the FSL. The FSL report is marked in evidence.

However, serological report is not produced. The accused is charged for committing the offence punishable under sections 302 and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 and acquitted him of the offence punishable U/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

4. The accused is in appeal challenging his conviction.

5. The Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. The other witness PW6 has turned hostile. On the basis of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 and on the basis of the discovery evidence, the accused was convicted.

6. Upon hearing the SPP and the counsel for the appellant, we noticed the following discrepancies in the investigation and in the evidence which does not warrant conviction.

1. In the FIR it is stated that on 25.2.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased went along with PWs.2 and 6 towards Mandya road on the outskirts of Malavalli. The accused came and stabbed the deceased. PWs.2 and 6 are cited to be the eye witnesses. The FIR version discloses that PWs.2 and 6 kept the body on the road and they contemplated of holding Dharna and refused to give complaint. PW1, who is the leader of Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi, on hearing the information comes to the spot. Since PW2 was not willing to give the complaint, PW1 lodges the complaint as per Ex.P1 which is registered as FIR.

2. In the evidence of PW1 he comes out with a contradictory version that he went to the spot, none of the children of the deceased were present and only villagers had gathered and he gives the complaint to the police. The evidence of PW1 is totally in contradiction with the contents of the FIR.

3. PW1 does not speak anything in the evidence about PW2 contemplating to hold dharna by keeping the dead body on the road. PWs2 and 6 also do not speak anything in this regard and they don’t even whisper contemplating to hold dharna by keeping the dead body on the road and refusing to give the complaint.

4. The FIR discloses that PWs.2 and 6 are only the eye witnesses to the incident. But in the course of investigatio