The case of the prosecution is that the original house of the complainant is in Kadatoka village, Honnavar taluk, Karwar District. Due to the harassment of his senior uncle Shivaram Parameshwar Hegde, his father had purchased a land in Mogalkeri and had constructed a house therein. The father of the complainant and brothers, effected a partition of the ancestral agricultural properties. On 09.12.2008 in the morning, the complainant along with Ishwar had visited Kadatoka-Jadigadde for cutting areca nut and when they were in the garden, they heard a loud voice near the house of Shivaram. They went there and found that Shivaram Hegde, Gajanan Hegde and Suhasini Hegde were assaulting Ramachandra Hegde and also abusing Ramachandra in a filthy language and were threatening him. Shivaram Hegde asaulted Ramachandra with a stick on his head. When the complainant and Ishwar tried to pacify the quarrel, Gajanan Hegde tried to assault the complainant on his head with a stick. In the process, the complainant sustained an injury to his right shoulder. Ramachandra sustained an injury on the head and became unconscious. The younger brother of the complainant-Satish, came there and pacified them.

2. On receipt of the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.292 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(the ‘IPC’ for short). Investigation was taken up. The charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty.

3. On trial, accused No.3 was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Since the accused was in custody for a period of 10 days, a sentence was imposed for the period of detention already undergone and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326. Accused No.2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, namely till the rising of the Court.

4. Seeking to set aside the order of acquittal of accused No.3 and seeking conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, the complainant and the injuredPW9 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 2882 of 2012. Seeking enhancement of sentence, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2533 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. Sri S.B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2882 of 2012, contends that the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3 is inappropriate. That the evidence and material on record would clearly indicate that they are guilty of the offences charged against them.

6. On the other hand, Sri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 defends the same.

7. The prosecution has let in evidence and material to implicate accused No.3 for the offence alleged against her. The trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. That the evidence and material on record do not indicate that accused No.3 is guilty of the offence alleged against her. None of the evidence leads to the involvement of accused No.3. That no overt acts have been attributed to accused No.3 in the commission of the said offence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted accused No.3. The trial Court has considered the evidence let in by the prosecution. We find no error committed by the trial Court in arriving at such a conclusion.

8. The further contention is that the order of acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code requires to be reversed. That there is substantial material to convict the accused of the said offences. Keeping in mind the injuries sustained, it cannot be said that the order of acquittal is erroneous. The finding of t