K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. The above said two appeals are clubbed in order to avoid repetition of facts involved in these cases and the common judgment is passed.

2. The appellant who is the complainant in Spl. Case No. 17/2003 and PW-2 in Spl. Case No. 6/2003 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag challenged the judgments passed by the said Court in the above said two cases vide Judgments dated 28th day of October 2010.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, on 10.02.2003 according to the appellant in the morning hours at about 5.00 a.m. the appellant-Shambulingappa was proceeding to his land to harvest the wheat crop. He was alone going towards his land on that day. While he was passing through the house of the accused No. 1 he observed a dog chased him and attempted to bite him. When he was about to beat the said dog with a stick the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the Trial Court came there and tied the appellant to a telephone pole with the help of rope and abused him with filthy language and assaulted him with hands, stick and rope. It is specifically alleged that Ninganagouda Iranagouda Hiregouder-Accused No. 1 has assaulted the appellant with stick and he came with a heated iron rod and swiped iron rod on different pails of the body of the appellant. Due to which he sustained burn injuries and he lost consciousness and thereafter his father came there admitted complainant to KIMS Hospital and taken treatment there.

4. It is the further case of the complainant that though he did not file any report before the Police but the Police themselves came to the Hospital and taken his left hand thumb impression thereafter concocted the FIR (Ex P3). It is contended that thereafter some days, later he came to know that the contents of the FIR registered by the Police was not as stated by him, therefore, he lodged a private complaint before the J.M.F.C., Naragund Court narrating the above said real facts. The learned Magistrate has registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) r/w 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(viii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the accused persons. Thereafter, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses on behalf of the complainant, i.e. to say three witnesses were examined by the complainant in that private complaint. As the learned Magistrate came to know that a Police case is also registered by the Police in Crime No. 19/2003 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 355, 342, 504 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and also Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1987. The learned Magistrate in fact has stayed the proceedings for some time.

5. It is seen from the records that the Police after due investigation submitted a charge sheet before the Special Court and a case is registered in Special SC/ST CC No. 6/2003. It appears, after the said case is being registered in the special case, the learned Magistrate has also committed the said private complaint to the Special Court. In fact, the Special Court has also registered the said complaint case in Special SC ST CC No. 17/2004. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded with the Police report and framed the charges against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 342,324, 355, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(ii)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused in Special Case No. 6/2003 examined 13 witnesses PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Ex. P1 to P12 and also material objects 1 to 5 and closed its case.

6. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments proceeded to pass the judgment in both the cases on the same day. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that when the Police have registered the case, investiga