MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the state challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed in Spl.C.C. No. 34/2009 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, wherein the respondents No. A-1 to A-13, who were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 were acquitted of the said offences.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State as well as learned counsel for the accused/respondents.

3. The facts leading to this case is that on 24.08.2009, at about 7.30 pm, the complainant namely Narayana Swamy examined as PW-1 lodged the First Information Report before the Vemagal police station, Kolar against Accused Nos. 1 to 13 which was registered in Crime No. 181/2009 of the said police station and investigation was taken up and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., all the accused in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly armed with clubs and came near the land where the complainant and others were doing agricultural work and questioned them as to why they are doing the said work in the land as the said land belongs to them and by abusing them in a filthy language insulting their caste and threatening that their houses will be burnt etc., assaulted P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.Ws. 5 to 8 and 11 and caused simple injuries to them. Hence, committed the offences charged against them.

5. The accused denied the charges and claimed not guilty and accordingly the prosecution proceeded to examine the witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Before the trial court, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined and from their evidence, Ex. P1 to Ex. P19 and MOs. 1 to 6 were marked. The defence has not examined any witnesses on their behalf and have denied the incident as alleged by the prosecution.

6. The learned trial Judge on an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced has ultimately come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

7. It is the contention of the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the State that the incident occurred on 24.08.2009 at about 10.30 a.m., and according to the wound certificates at Exs. P-12 to P-18, the injured namely P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 to 8 and 11 were examined by the doctor on the very same day and they were treated for the simple injuries sustained by them and in this regard, wound certificate at Exs. P12 to P18 have been marked through the Investigating Officer - P.W. 12. As per the wound certificates, which have been relied upon, he submits that all these witnesses have sustained those injuries and the said witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is his further submission that in support of the complaint lodged by P.W. 1, he has corroborated the averments made in the complaint by way of his evidence and P.Ws. 2, 5 to 8 and 11 have all supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is his submission that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and he submits that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may be set aside.

8. On the other hand, Sri. A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents submits that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused on account of the land dispute between the parties and there is a decree in favour of the accused in respect of the very same land. He further submits that there is a case and counter case and even the accused parties have also sustained injuries in the said incident. He further submits that though the prosecution witnesses have given evidence against the accused persons, but there are inconsistencies in the said evidence which go to the root o