The judgment establishes the principle that corroboration of witness testimony is crucial in criminal cases, and the prosecution must prove clear intention or knowledge of likely provocation to establish certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction passed in Special Case No.69/2010 by District & Sessions Judge Yadgir by its Judgment and order dated: 24-06-2011.

2. The brief matrix of the case of the complainant are that, complainant is working as village accountant of Balkal village. On 09-12-2009 during morning hours, he went to the office of Tahasildar at Shahapur for some work, at that time, Tahsildar informed about illegal construction of house by one Siddaling Reddy of Balkal village and he instructed the complainant to enquire whether he has obtained necessary permission for construction of the house. Complainant went to Balkal village and met the said Siddaling Reddy and when he was asking, whether he has got permission or not to construct the house, the son-in-law of Siddaling Reddy Neelkanth Raya the present accused/appellant, came there and abused him as K “KANNADA” and by abusing so he slapped thereafter pulled for which he fell down and sustained injuries and by seeing the same one Shivappa, Mallayya, Channappa and others came and pacified the quarrel. Subsequently the complainant went to the police station and filed the complaint as per Ex.P.1. The police registered the case in crime No.254/2009 for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 332, 504 of Indian Penal Code and also U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Pa) Act, 1989. After investigation, the charge sheet was came to be filed.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Sessions Judge who is the trial Judge of such offences, secured the presence of the accused after complying the requirements of Sec.208 & 209, after hearing the accused, the charge was framed, since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial was conducted. The prosecution examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material put against him and accused did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.

4. On hearing, the parties to the lis, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, whereunder the accused has been convicted. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appellant is before this Court, in this Appeal.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It is contrary to law and facts of the case on hand. He further contended that eyewitnesses to the alleged incident have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have been treated as hostile. The trial Court only on the interested testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 has wrongly convicted the accused. He also contended that P.W.1 had no right to inspect the panchayat work. This aspect has been admitted by him. This admission has been ignored by the trial Court and has wrongly come to the wrong conclusion and has convicted the accused/appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence. He would further contended that there are no specific allegations made against the accused/petitioner for having committed an offence U/Sec.504 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court without properly considering the said aspect has convicted the accused. He would also further contended that though the injured P.W.1 had deposed that he has sustained bleeding injuries but he has not taken any treatment and even the pant, which is stained with blood has also not been seized by the police. He would also further contended that there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The conviction of the trial Court is illogical and untenable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently argued and contended that there is corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.2 is eyew