The principle that an accused cannot be convicted based on insufficient evidence or the testimony of hostile witnesses, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.162/2010 for having found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

2. years for the offence punishable under Sec. 326 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 of IPC vide judgment dtd. 18/1/2012. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of PW.1, the Police registered a case and it was alleged in the complaint that on 3/9/2009 in the early morning at 3.00 a.m., the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant, assaulted with deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sec. 324, 326 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC . After the investigation, they filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Ss. 324, 307 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The accused was arrested and released on bail. The charges were framed, thee accused denied the charges categorically. Accordingly, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as per PWs.1 to 6 and got marked 8 documents as per Exs.P1 to P8 and 6 Material Objects as per M.Os.1 to 6. After closing the evidence, the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. The case of the accused is one of the total denial and they have not entered any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 326 and 324 of IPC which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has seriously contended that all the complainant and injured witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 were totally turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 and PW.5 are the doctors who treated the injured and issued the certificate as per Exs.P.4 to 6. PW.4 is a Police Constable who recorded the statement of the complainant and PW.8 is an Investigating Officer. Without supporting the evidence of the complainant and the injured witnesses, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted based upon the evidence of PWs.3 to 6 who were official witnesses. The trial Court has committed error in accepting the statement of the complainant which is not proved by the prosecution and hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the appeal and supported the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.1 who is the injured as well as complainant who has totally denied Ex.P.1, the complaint lodged by him before the police and he has denied the accused were committed the offence. Though both PWs.1 and 2 stated that somebody came inside the house and assaulted, but they don't know who are the assailants and they denied the statement as well as the complaint made to the Police. PWs.3 and 5 are the Doctors who examined the injured and issued the certificates as per Exs.P.4 to 6. PW.4 is a Police Constable who recorded the statement of the complainant and PW.6 is an Investigating Officer who registered the FIR and filed the charge-sheet. Though the FIR as well as M.Os.1 to 6 were marked through the Investigating Officer, but the trial Court found the accused guilty on the ground that there is circumstantial evidence which was proved by the prosecution. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the Court that can rely upon the circumstantial evidence and conviction can be done. There is no second opinion in respect of proving the guilt of the accused by producing the circumstantial evidence, but, it should be beyond reasonable doubt and without hypothesi