The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness statements can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(M.G. UMA, J.)

The appellants in Crl.A.No.191/2014 being accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.235/2014 being accused No.3 in Spl.C.No.26/2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Chitradurga are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2014, convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 504 r/w Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'IPC) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, on 07.06.2011 there was a quarrel between the accused and injured while playing cricket. On the same day at about 7.30 pm, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, picked up quarrel with PW1, abused him in filthy language, referring to his caste humiliated him, and assaulted PWs1 and 2 with stone, causing injuries. Thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. The police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet for the above said offences.

3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, got marked Ex.P1 to 13, identified MO1 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, and sentenced them as stated above, while acquitting them for the offence punishable under Section 207 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court.

4. Heard Sri. P.B.Umesh, learned counsel for Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.191/2014, Sri. Kalemullah Shariff, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.235/2014 and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution t