1 This appeal has been heard after the matter was remanded to this Court by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cri. A. No. 969/2007. This Court on the earlier occasion disposed of this appeal by its judgment dated 6-7-2006 and the matter was taken to the Apex Court by the second appellant (accused No. 4 before the Trial Court), as this Court had convicted him for the offence punishable under S.333 and 452 of IPC and sentenced him to one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Following the order passed by the Apex Court remanding the matter, this Court heard the learned counsel for the parties on 25-1-2008 and posted the matter for further hearing today.

2 The learned Government Pleader Shri Honnappa completed the arguments on behalf of the appellant / State. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted his reply.

3 While remanding the matter to this Court, the Apex Court had observed thus :
"Learned counsel for the respondent does not object to setting aside of the order in terms of order dated 14-5-2007. Accordingly, the order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court for the passing of appropriate order in accordance with law after affording due opportunities of hearing to the counsel for the parties."

4 The facts in brief are to the effect that the police officials who were on duty to the RPF post of Cantonment police station on 27-4-1992 on getting information that certain persons had committed theft of the asbestos sheets put on the water tank in the Railway colony, were able to apprehend accused No. 1 Johnson, after chasing the culprits. While the police officials led by Siddappa and accompanied by Chandra Naidu, Somanna and Naganna, all who were on duty were able to catch hold of accused No. 1 Jhonson and brought him to the police station for enquiry, the other accused persons also came there and accused No. 4 Chakravarthi is said to have given a blow on the face of the complainant Siddappa with his head and this led to one tooth of Siddappa being broken and the injured complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment. Complaint of Siddappa was recorded by PW 4 Shakar R. Nimbalkar, PSI on 28-4-1992 at about 4.30 a.m. and based on the said complaint of Siddappa (PW 2) as per Ex. P1, case was registered and FIR was sent as per Ex. P2. After collecting blood stained shirt and broken tooth under the spot mahazar Ex. P3, the injured complainant was sent to the doctor for examination. PW 8 Dr. Channakeshava identified the wound certificate issued by the dental doctor and it is Ex. P5. After recording statement of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and on completion of the investigation, PW 7 Mohammed Ghouse submitted his charge sheet.

5 A1 to A4 were put on trial in respect of the charge levelled against them for having committed the offence punishable under S.333 and 452 read with S.34 of the IPC. During the course of trial, accused No. 1 was found absconding and accused No. 3 was found dead. Therefore, only against accused Nos. 2 and 4 the trial proceeded. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and documents P1 to P6 were marked. MO 1 shirt and MO 2 broken tooth were also produced. The accused who took the trial denied the case of the prosecution when they were questioned under S.313 of the CrPC. They chose to lead no evidence. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the prosecution case was not free from reasonable doubt in as much as though 50 to 60 persons had gathered near the police station, yet only police officials were examined before the Trial Court and therefore, in the absence of independent witnesses being examined, it was Unsafe to rely on the testimony of official witness including the injured complainant. Apart from this, the Trial Court also found certain discrepancies in the history of assault given before the doctor and accused No. 1 was also found injured in the accident but the prosecution did not off