JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Petitioner, besides three other accused, was put on trial for offence under Section 341, 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yadgiri Taluk, Gulbarga District, Karnataka, by its judgment and order dated 14th of September, 2006 passed in CC No. 355 of 2006, acquitted them of all the charges.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the informant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 147 of 2007 and the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th of August, 2008 maintained the order of acquittal of all accused persons, excepting accused no. 3, Ganesha who has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

It is against this order that Ganesha has preferred this special leave petition.

Leave granted.

The prosecution was set in motion on the basis of a report given by the informant, Sharanappa, inter alia, alleging that he made a protest when he saw the accused persons grazing their cattle in his land and thereby damaging the mulberry crop. It was alleged that Ganesha, the appellant herein assaulted the informant with a Badige (stick) which caused injury near his left eye. The rest of the prosecution story is not being narrated as the accused who have allegedly participated in that have been acquitted and we are not concerned with that in the present appeal. The trial court, on appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted all the accused. However, in revision, the High Court re-appraised the evidence and found the reasoning assigned by the trial court to be totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court relied on the evidence of Sharanappa, the informant (PW-2), Maremma (PW-4), Sujatha (PW-5) and Hussainappa (PW-6), who claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The High Court found Maremma (PW-4) and Hussainappa (PW-6) to be the independent eye-witnesses and reliable. The High Court further observed that the evidence of Dr. Surekha (PW-1), who examined the injured and gave the wound certificate (Exhibit 2) corroborated the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal of the present appellant and convicted him as above. While doing so, the High Court observed as follows:

“17. In my view, the aforesaid reasoning of the trial court is totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. We have seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 that all of them have come out successfully in their cross-examination and all of them have spoken to the fact of A-3 assaulting P.W. 2 with a stick near his left eye and the other accused persons catching hold of P.W.2. Furthermore, it is also clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 that the incident happened in the land of the complainant when the cattle belonging to the accused went to the land of the complainant for grazing the crop. Therefore, no doubt arises as to the place of incident.”

Mr. Akshat Shrivastav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raises a very short point. He submits that the High Court in revision could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and at most, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, could direct for re-trial. Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the High Court having found the reasoning assigned by the trial court to be totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on record is not precluded from setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the accused for the offence charged.

Having appreciated the rival submissions we f