JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - Criminal Appeal No. 100285/2016 has been preferred by the state for enhancement of the sentence whereas Criminal Appeal No. 100158/2016 has been preferred by the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 5 challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the learned Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Special Judge at Haveri in Special (SC/ST) case No. 22/2009 dated 06.04.2016.

2. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant-State so also we have heard learned counsel Sri K.L. Patil for the appellants-accused and perused the records including the trial court records.

3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.05.2009 the complainant was proceeding in his tempo trax vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-17-2162 and at that time he invited passengers for hire belonging to accused No.2. He left the place with the passengers at about 4.30 PM. It is further alleged that, at the time when the complainant was returning, the accused No.2 came in his goods rickshaw vehicle and intercepted the vehicle of the complainant and the accused Nos.1 to 3 dragged the complainant out from the tempo and assaulted him with hands and thereafter the complainant went to his house and informed the incident to CWs 1, 4, 8 and 11 and they altogether went to the house of the accused at Karadagi village.

4. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 with a common object by forming an unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons picked up quarrel with the complainant and his men. Accused No.1 assaulted one Holebasappa Talawar with Kandli, who came to solve the dispute. Accused No.1 also abused the said Holebasappa in filthy language by referring to his caste and thereby they have commi tted the offences. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital and a complaint has been registered by the Police in this behalf in Crime No.92/2009. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 5.

5. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and after hearing both the sides charge was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such trial was fixed. To prove the case of the prosecution, 21 witnesses were examined and 31 documents so also 6 material objects were got marked. Thereafter the accused came to be examined by putting incriminating materials as against them but they denied the same. However, accused No.1 has given an explanation that the accused No.5 has caused injuries on the head of his sister by soda bottles and in that regard he has gone to Savanur Police Station for lodging complaint but the Police did not register the complaint instead arrested accused No.1 and falsely implicated in the case. The accused also produced six documents along with the statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides the trial court convicted the accused. Challenging the quantum of sentence the State has preferred the appeal for enhancement of the sentence, whereas the accused are in appeal for their acquittal.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is perverse, contrary to law and materials placed on record and as such the same is liable to be set aside. Further, the first incident of assault had taken place at 4.30 p.m. at chillur village and the complainant party themselves had come to the place of the accused and committed assault. Even though the accused No.1 went to the Police station to file the complaint but the Police did not register the complaint but arrested him and sent to jail. The accused No.1 after his release from the jail filed complaint which was investigated and 'B' report came to be filed by the Police for which a protest petition was also filed by the accused persons. Hence, the act of the complainant and his men clearly show that they are the aggressors. Even the evidence would show that sister of the accused No.1 suffe