The present revision petition is filed under Section 397, Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.59/08 by the learned civil judge at Holenarasipura and affirmed in Crl.A.15/10, a judgment passed by the presiding officer of fast track court at Holenarasipura. Petitioners have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/each, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. They have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/each for the offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C.

2. This judgment of conviction dated 17.2.2010 passed in C.C.59/08 had been called in question by filing an appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. in Crl.A.15/10. The said appeal came to be dismissed after contest. It is these concurrent findings that are called in question in this revision petition on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of petition.

3. The case of the prosecution is that at about 12.00 midnight on 13.8.2006, CW1Thammagowda gave a statement to the police that CW10 (PSI) that at 10.00 p.m. on the previous day, when himself and his family members were sleeping, they heard the sound of stones being pelted at their house and some persons abusing them. When he opened the door, accused with picked up quarrel and assaulted on his left shoulder with a stone (M.O.2), When CW2 Mallegowda came to rescue him, Shivanna 1st accused assaulted him (CW2) on his head causing bleeding injuries. When Parvathamma (PW3) tried to interfere, the 3rd accusedManja hit her on her right knee. The further case of prosecution is that Javaregowda (4th accused) brought other accused from Bachenahalli village and instigated them to pick quarrel with CWs1 to 3. In the meantime, PW4 and PW2Mallegowda pacified them and all the injured persons were taken to Government Hospital, Holenarasipura and a case was registered against eight persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 114 read with Section 34, I.P.C.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and got marked

6 exhibits and 3 material objects, viz., M.O.1chopper and M.Os.2 and 3 stones. The learned judge of the trial court has relied on the evidence of injured witnesses to come to the conclusion that injured witnesses will not leave out the real assailant in order to rope in persons unconnected with the case. He has relied on the evidence of the doctor who has opined that the fracture on the right frontal bone sustained by Mallegowda was ‘grievous hurt.’ Therefore, the learned judge has convicted all the petitioners and directed them to undergo imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. The injuries sustained by Thammegowda and Parvathamma were simple in nature.

5. What is argued before this court by Smt.Sheela, learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326, I.P.C. is not at all sustainable either in law or on facts since the doctor who has given evidence before the trial court, has not produced the CT Scan report which is the basis for his opinion. It is argued that mere evidence of the doctor cannot be considered as the beallandendall without there being any corroboration in material particulars.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP, Mr.Rachaiah has vehemently argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of injured witnesses coupled with the evidence PW10 Dr.Anitha Badani. It is argued that it was PW10 who examined all the witnesses on the midnight of the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The first information is marked as Ex.P1 which was submitted by Thammegowda who w