The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of evidence to establish the commission of the offences led to the acquittal of the accused.

Mrs. K. Hema, J.

Appellants are accused nos.1 and 2 in a Sessions Case. They were tried along with accused Nos. 3 to 7 by the Additional Sessions Court for offences under Sections 8 and 55 (g) of Abkari Act and sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 353 and 149 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). After the trial, accused nos.1 and 2 alone were convicted for offences under Sections 143, 148, 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 143 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year under 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) each under Section 353 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 506 I.P.C. Substantive sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. Set off was also allowed.

3. According to prosecution, on 26.5.1998, while PW1, the Excise Inspector, attached to the Haripad Excise Circle Office was on patrol duty along with PW2, the Excise Guard and others, they found a tin containing liquid jaggery and also 750 ml of arrack in a paddy field near the house of the accused. The articles were seized under a mahazar and they proceeded further on patrol duty.

4. While so, appellants along with co-accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with common object of attacking PW1 and other officials, they committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like sword stick, cycle chain, axe, iron rod etc. They also criminally intimidated the officials and threatened PW1 and party by showing deadly weapons. They committed the above acts with intend to prevent and deter PW1 and party from discharging their duty as public servants and thereby, committed offence under Section 353 of I.P.C.

5. On seeing the unlawful assembly and on hearing from them that PW1 and others would be attacked, whistle was blown and another excise party and police party which were engaged in patrol duty in the nearby locality came running to the rescue of the officials. First and second accused were arrested from the spot and MO1 and MO2 were seized from their possession. Mahazar was prepared and report was also prepared by PW1 based on which, a crime was registered at the police station. After investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted along with other accused.

6. PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 and MO1 to MO5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Accused did not adduce any evidence. According to accused (as seen from the cross-examination) some contraband articles were seized from paddy field and the officials made an attempt to falsely implicate innocent persons in Abkari case. Hence there was a hue and cry and some protest was also made (in the locality). Hence as shield, excise party falsely charge sheeted the accused in this case by making false allegations.

7. The trial court found that prosecution proved that accused 1 and 2 committed offences under Sections 143, 147 148, 353 and 506 Part (i) of IPC. No separate conviction was found necessary under Section 147 I.P.C. as they are convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. Accused nos. 3 to 7 were not proved to be members of the unlawful assembly to which accused nos.1 and 2 belonged and they were acquitted of all the offences. All accused were also acquitted of offences under the Abkari Act.

8. Heard both sides. Since certain questions of law were involved, Sri. S. Nikhil Sankar was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court. Perused the records. Learned counsel for appellant argued that accused cannot be convicted for offence under Section 506 I.P.C., since no injury was caused. There was no threat. It is also argued that prosecution failed to prove that an abkari offence was detected on that day and hence motive to commit offence under Section 353 I.P.C. against the officials is absent.

9. Lear