This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi in S.C.No.17/2009 dated 30.04.2010, convicting the accused/appellant herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the victim and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

On 26-03-2008, at about 10.00 p.m., the accused was taking food along with the complainant Karunakara Poojary and Ganapathy Kamath at S.S. Bar, Padubidri. During the discussion, the accused abused the complainant with a filthy language and broke a soda bottle by hitting the same to the table and stabbed the complainant with the said soda bottle on his stomach and again stabbed the complainant in front of the S.S. Bar on his stomach, as a result of which, the complainant sustained grievous injuries.

3. In pursuance of the act of the accused, a complaint came to be registered in Crime No.31/2008 and the Investigating Officer has taken up the investigation and laid a chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC wherein the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked as many as 21 documents as at Exs.P.1 to P.8(a). Apart from that, material objects were marked as MOs. 1 to 4. Thereafter statement under Section 313 was also recorded wherein the accused denied the allegations made against him, however, he did not come forward to adduce the defence evidence as contemplated under law.

5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and has been imposed sentence as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the accused.

6. Heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned Government Pleader for the State.

7. Keeping in view the submission made by them and perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, the only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is-

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence held against the accused are justifiable in law?

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments has taken me through the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court and contended that the order of sentence is contrary to the facts and law. The prosecution has not placed any evidence to establish that the accused has caused injuries over the person of the injured beyond all reasonable doubts. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and also in examining the eyewitnesses to the incident and the said delay was caused to give definite shape to the case. The Prosecution has not ventured to establish the case against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1/complainant is unnatural, artificial and not credit-worthy to hold that the accused had caused injuries to the complainant by stabbing him with the broken soda bottle, on the vital parts of the stomach. Despite that, the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the accused has caused injuries over the person of the injured-complainant, which is beyond all reasonable doubts and the same is required to be revisited by re-appreciation of entire evidence on record. It is further contended that the Prosecution has not placed any cogent and corroborative evidence to prove that the accused had any intention to cause the alleged offence inflicting stab injuries over the