The court found the conviction unsupported due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, emphasizing the necessity of corroboration in criminal cases involving interested witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18^th March, 2014 passed in SC No.14 of 2011 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Davanagere (for short "the trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their status before the special court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Harapanahalli Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 504, 323, 114, 506, 307 and 353 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 17.02.2010 at about 12.55 p.m. in the noon, CW1- B.K. Srinivas Murthy was discharging his duty as Municipal Commissioner at Town Municipal Council, Harapanahalli and at that time, the accused formed into an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit offence and entered the chambers of CW1 in the Municipal Council Office and abused him with abusive words with intention to provoke him to commit offence and further, they threatened him stating that they would kill him and assaulted him with hands and pressed his neck and tried to commit the murder. Accused persons prevented CW1 from discharging his official duties by assaulting him and threatening him. After the incident, CW1 went to Harapanahalli police station and lodged report regarding the incident. On the basis of said report, CW15, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Harapanhahalli Police Station registered the case against the accused and visited the place of incident and interrogated the accused. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge- sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of alleged offences. After filing charge sheet, a case was registered in CC No.697 of 2010 and the case was committed to the Court of Session and the same was registered in SC No.14 of 2011. The accused appeared before the Sessions Court and enlarged on bail.

5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for the aforesaid commission of aforesaid offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and 19 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P19 and iron chair is marked as MO1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused have totally, denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 of IPC and accused Nos.1 to 5 are convicted for the offence under Section 147, 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and accused No. 3 is convicted for the offence under Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and the trial Court has passed the sentence against accused Nos. 1 to 5 to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for each offences under Section 147 and 323 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 353 read with Section 149 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for these offences.

8. Accused No. 3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment, he shall undergo simple imprisonmen