The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of granting benefit of doubt to the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable, and the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Uma, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appel lant chal lenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/3/2016 passed in SC No.24/2014 on the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gadag, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), whereunder the present appellant was arrayed as accused No.2 and was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC, whi le acquitting him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 307 of IPC and also acquitting accused No.1, 3 to 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. The respondent State is notif ied. Heard the learned advocate for the appel lant Sri. B.S.Kukanagoudar and learned Additional SPP Sri. V.M.Banakar for the State. Perused the materials on record including the LCR.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution before the trial Court that on 15/1/2014 at 8:00 a.m. accused Nos.1 to 10 with a common object formed unlawful assembly in front of the house of CW1 and picked up quarrel with the informant in the matter of property dispute, committed rioting with deadly weapon and assaulted CWs.8 to 13 with hands and caused hurt to CWs.1, 8, 4 and 6 with the handle of axe, dragged CWs.9 and 10 and fisted on their chest and outraged their modesty and abused them in fi lthy language and gave life threat to CWs.1, 8 to 13. Further, accused Nos.1, 2, 9 and 10 assaulted CWs.1, 8 to 13 with sticks, handle of the axe and wooden plank and caused grievous hurt and attempted to cause their death, and accused No.2 assaulted Basavanneppa Hadapad and caused fatal injuries, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries and thereby al l the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC

4. The Investigating Off icer investigated into the mater and fi led charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 10 for the above said offences and the learned Magistrate committed the matter to the learned Principal Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused and fol lowing procedure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The matter was made over to the trial Court and it had secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges against al l the accused including the present appellant who is arrayed as accused No.2 and the accused have pleaded not gui lty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove this contention, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 29, got marked Exs.P1 to 34 and identif ied MOs.1 to 8 in support of its contention. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied al l the incriminating materials avai lable on record but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. They got marked Exs.D1 and D2 during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

6. The trial Court after taking into consideration al l these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the gui lt of accused No.2 and convicted him for the said offence. However, the trial Court acquitted accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 307 of IPC and also acquitted accused Nos.1, 3 to 10 for all the offences alleged.

7. Accused No.2 who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC preferred this appeal on the fol lowing grounds:-

The impugned judgment of convection and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is i llegal, perverse and the same is l iable to be set aside. The trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before it in proper perspective. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the so called injured witnesses and the deceased in the present case were accused in the counter case, i.e S.C.No.8/2015