Prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient for conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in SC No.233/2012 dated 20.04.2013.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kyathasandra Police Station, submitted the charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 435, 504 and 34 IPC . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 30.11.2011 at about 07.00 a.m. near the petty shop of CW1-Kamalamma situated in Vittaravutanahalli village, Ordigere Hobli, the accused No.3 Parvathamma, on account of previous ill-will, in furtherance of their common object, intentionally insulted CW1-Kamalamma by using filthy language and thereby gave provocation to her, intending that such provocation would cause PW1 to break public peace. Further it is alleged that accused having common intention, accused No.3 shouted to set fire to CW1 and also to her petty shop. The accused No. 2 Lakshmidevi poured kerosene to the Oppara in front of the petty shop and accused No.1 Kantharaju set fire with intent to cause damage and caused damage to the Oppara and thereby caused loss to an extent of Rs.1000/- to CW.1. Further it is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 with their common object to cause death of CW1, the accused No.3 asked to set fire to CW1, the accused No. 2 poured kerosene and accused No.1 tried to set fire and by that act accused Nos. 1 to 3 had caused the death to CW1. They would have been guilty of murder. Thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 504 , 435, 307 r/w 34 . After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in CC No. 1035/2012. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in SC No.233/2012. The accused were enlarged on bail.

4. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed the charges for commission of offences punishable under Sections 435 , 504 and 307 r/w Section 34 IPC . Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and six documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Eight material objects were marked as MO No.1 to MO.8. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Accused have totally denied evidence of prosecution witnesses. But they have not chosen to led any evidence on their behalf.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial court has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC . However, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 435 , 504 r/w 34 and sentenced appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 each and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 435 r/w Section 34 of . They shall further undergo for simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of . Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

7. Sri. Manjunatha H.V learned counsel for the appellants would submit that trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and on facts. According to the case of the prosecution PW2 an