The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal, filed under Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is preferred by the Appellant–State, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 15.06.2007 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti (for short, “the Trial Court”), in Sessions Case No.246 of 2006. By the said judgment, the Trial Court acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 354, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, and Ex.D1 document was marked.

3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:

A.1 to A.4 and A.8, residents of Diguva Maradawada village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, are interrelated and belong to the Kamma caste. PWs.1 to 5 are also residents of the same village. A land dispute existed between A.1 to A.4 and A.8 on one side and PW.1 on the other. PWs.1 to 5 claimed the disputed land as temple property of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, while the accused asserted ownership based on patta certificates issued by the revenue authorities. Owing to rival claims, a civil suit was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, which is still pending.

On 22.03.2004 at about 6:30 a.m., while PW.1 and others were performing pooja at the idol of Lord Venkateswara Swamy, A.1 to A.4 and A.8 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, and assaulted PWs.1 to 5, causing bleeding injuries. A.1 assaulted PW.1 on the head; A.1 to A.4 and A.8 also assaulted other women present. When PWs.2 to 5 intervened, A.1 assaulted PW.2, A.2 assaulted PW.3, A.8 assaulted PW.4, and A.4 and A.5 assaulted him on the shoulder, all with sticks.

PW.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1), leading to the registration of Crime No.19 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, and 324 read with 149 IPC. After investigation, the accused were arrested on 31.03.2004 and remanded to judicial custody. PW.6, Dr. R. Srinivasan, examined PWs.1 to 5 and issued wound certificates (Exs.P2 to P6). Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.4 and A.8 under Sections 147, 148, and 324 read with 34 IPC.

4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathyavedu, took cognizance of the case as P.R.C. No.10 of 2004 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 354, and 324 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.10. During pendency, the case was split against A.5 to A.7 and A.9 to A.10 and registered separately as P.R.C. No.6 of 2006. The remaining case in P.R.C. No.10 of 2004 was committed to the District and Sessions Court, Chittoor, under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

5. The Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division, registered the case as S.C.No.246 of 2006 and referred it to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti, for disposal. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 354, and 324 read with 149 IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The Trial Court examined the accused as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to enable it to consider the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and against them. But the accused denied the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After the conclusion of arguments and upon perusal of the material, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them.

7. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State, contends that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate that the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 354, 324 r/w 149 of IPC were made out. He further contends that the learned trial Court erred in disbelievin