Budihal R.B., J.

1. This is the criminal appeal preferred by the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Sessions Court at Bagalkot in S.C. No. 45/2010. By the said judgment and order of conviction the appellants herein were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Mahantesh/PW1 is the complainant in this case lodged the complaint alleging that he is staying in the address as mentioned in the complaint. Himself one Vijayalaxmi and one Ravikumar are the children born to their parents and they all married. His sister Vijayalaxmi was given in marriage to accused No. 1 of Lingapur S.K. village about 26 years back. The couple were having one female child namely Rekha. As there was a difference of opinion and dispute between the couple since from 1990, the sister of the complainant Vijayalaxmi is staying in the house of the complainant. At the time of marriage of Rekha, the daughter of the said Vijayalaxmi and accused No. 1 even though accused No. 1 was called for the said marriage, he has not attended. Therefore, Vijayalaxmi filed the case before the Family Court against the accused No. 1 and Court issued the notice to the accused No. 1 in that case. On 24.12.2009 when the complainant was in his house, all the accused persons at about 8.00 p.m. came to the house of the complainant, abused him in filthy language stating that he instigated his sister to file the case in the Family Court stating so accused No. 3 and 4 tightly caught hold the complainant and accused No. 1 who was holding the stick assaulted the complainant on his head portion and accused No. 2/Shankarappa who was holding the Jambe, he also assaulted the complainant on the head forcibly. After hearing the hue and cry, Savita, the wife of the complainant then mother of the complainant and some other persons they all rushed to the place and they pacified the quarrel. At that time, accused persons told that the complainant is saved and they will see him later. The complainant seen the incident in the light which was put to the main door of the said house. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the appellants/accused for the said offences.

3. The charges were framed against the accused persons by the trial court after hearing both sides. Then the prosecution in order to prove its case in all examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to 12, got marked documents at Ex. P1 to P9(a) and also got marked material objects M.O. No. 1 to 4. On the side of the accused persons, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced. After considering the merits of the case both oral and documentary ultimately the trial court convicted the appellants/accused for the said offences. Being aggrieved by the same and challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court so also the sentence portion, the appellants are before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and also the learned HCGP for the respondent/State.

5. Learned counsel made the submission that firstly though the incident said to have taken place on 24.12.2009 at 8.00 p.m., but the complaint came to be lodged on the next day i.e. on 25.12.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. He made the submission in this regard that looking to the evidence of the Doctor/PW11, she clearly stated that on 24.12.2009 at about 9.00 p.m. the injured was brought to the hospital, she has examined and the police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital. So in this connection, he made the submission that looking to Ex. P1/complaint, it is not the same complaint which is said to have been recorded in the hospital on 24.12.2009, but Ex. P1/complaint is a written complaint submitted be