The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; general allegations without specific evidence are insufficient for conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C .) have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the accused have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 307, 323, 353, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine.

2. The prosecution alleged that the accused were engaged in the illegal transportation of sand on the Mylara-Guttala road from the banks of the Tungabhadra River without paying the requisite royalty to the Government. Consequently, the Government established a check post near the land of one Honnappa of Huliyal village, where Home Guards CW2 (Kotresh) and CW3 (Mallanna) were deployed from 9:00 a.m. on 18.05.2014 to 9:00 a.m. on 19.05.2014.

3. On 19.05.2014, at approximately 1:00 a.m., while the Home Guards were inspecting lorries, accused Nos. 1 to 14 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of picking a quarrel. They arrived at the check post on motorcycles and abused the Home Guards in indecent language to insult and provoke them into breaching the peace. They also allegedly threatened the Home Guards with dire consequences. The situation was pacified by police personnel CW7 (Mallappa) and CW9 (Kotresh).

4. Later, at approximately 8:45 a.m., the accused allegedly engaged in another altercation with the Home Guards while they were verifying lorry passes. They allegedly abused them in indecent language, issued threats to their lives, and deterred them from performing their official duties. Accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted CW2 by striking him on the abdomen and attempting to murder him by strangulation. Accused Nos. 2 and 11 allegedly assaulted CW3 (Mallanna). The complainant, along with CWs.10 to 12, intervened and pacified the altercation. Before leaving the scene, the accused allegedly threatened the police and Home Guards with dire consequences should they continue inspecting lorry passes and obstructing the illegal transportation of sand.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and produced documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P1 to P18.

6. Upon analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the injured witnesses, PWs.3 and 4, had turned hostile. Except for omnibus and general allegations, there was no specific overt act attributed to any of the accused regarding how and in what manner they obstructed the public servants from discharging their officialduties. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court solely based on omnibus and general allegations is not legally sustainable.

8. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State argued that Ex.P15 (wound certificate) clearly established that the accused assaulted PW3 with an intention to kill. Furthermore, all the accused obstructed public servants from discharging their duties, as corroborated by the testimony of PWs.6, 7, and 9, who were eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The Trial Court, after a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment, which does not warrant interference.

9. After considering the arguments of both parties and perusing the evidence on record, the primary issue for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is legally sustainable.

10. PWs.3 and 4, who were serving as Home Guards on the date of the alleged incident, were the injured witnesses. However, during their examination-in-chief, t