Insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused in a conviction for serious offenses.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in S.C.No.184/2012 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 447 , 353, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC .

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Belur police station, Tumkur division filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 447, 353 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC .

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.07.2011 at about 10:00 p.m. in the forest area in Sy.No.4 of Arenahalli, Nittur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal tress-pass into the forest land by bringing a tractor with trailer bearing No.KA-11-T-4247. It is further alleged that with the common intention of committing the murder of CW.1 - Siddalingamurthy, CW.2 - Maranna and CW.3 - Jayalakshmi, who were officials of the forest department, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted CWs.1 to 3 public servants, in order to deter them from discharging their official duties. It is also alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention, intentionally insulted CWs.1 and 2 by using filthy language namely "¨ÉÆý ªÀÄPÀ̼À, ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼À" thereby provoking them with the intention that such provocation would cause a breach of the public peace. Further, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 with the common intention of causing death of CWs.1 to 3, attempted to run the tractor over them, thereby committing an act which if it had resulted in death, would have amounted to an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC .

5. After filing charge-sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused and the case was registered in C.C.No.282 of 2012 and after committed to the Court of Sessions, case was registered in S.C.No.184 of 2012. On hearing the charges, the Trial Court has framed the charges for the alleged offences. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses as PWs- 1 to 11; 42 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P42; three material objects were marked as MOs-1 to 3. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 447 , 353, 504 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and passed sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.205/- each for the offence under r/w 34 . Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 and accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 504 r/w 34 and the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of .

8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the Trial Court failed to consider the fact