1. Though this matter has been listed for orders, learned counsel for both parties submit that the case may be heard finally. As, a short question is involved, we are persuaded to hear the matter finally for disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by complainant in Crime No.84/2011 aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.07.2014 passed in S.C.No.29/2012 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has found accused 1 to 7 not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 326, 427 r/w section of 149 IPC. They have been accordingly acquitted.

3. Facts involved in this case disclose that on 02.06.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night at Chunchegowdanahalli Village accused 1 and 2 - Byregowda S/o Chikkaveerapppa and C.C. Nagaraju S/o Late Chikkaveeranna parked their tractor across the road; one C.M. Venkatesh (CW2) came there in his tractor to proceed to his house; he sounded horn alerting accused 1 and 2 to make way for him; accused No.4 - Srikantha S/o. Byregowda came there to remove the said tractor; thereafter, C.M. Venkatesh moved his tractor; at that time, accused No.1 told his son not to remove the tractor and abused C.M. Venkatesh; he assaulted C.M. Venkatesh with chopper resulting in injuries on the left hand index finger and on thumb finger of C.M. Venkatesh; accused No.1 also assaulted C.M. Venkatesh with club and dashed the tractor belonging to C.M. Venkatesh to the electric pole and caused damage. Father of injured filed a complaint against accused 1 to 7. Allegations of causing damage to the tractor was also made against accused Nos. 3 to 7.

4. Prosecution examined totally 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9. Exs.P.1 to P.9(a) and M.O. Nos.1 to 6 were produced and marked. No witness was examined by the defense and no document was produced and marked by them.

5. The Court below has found that offences alleged and punishable under Sections 143, 504, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC for which accused were tried were not proved inasmuch as evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 did not support the case of prosecution and the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences alleged.

6. Appellant herein is Munianjanappa who was the complainant in the present case. It transpires that on the same day (02.06.2011) at about 9.30 p.m. another complaint was lodged against C.M. Venkatesh S/o. Munianjanappa alleging that when the complainant was standing in front of his house, Venkatesh who was driving the tractor attached with cultivator tried to run him over and at that time, he went aside and escaped; said Venaktesh threatened the complainant that he would kill him by running him over and thus tried to dash against him; when the complainant tried to escape, the tractor was dashed against the electric pole and the electric pole was damaged.

7. This case was registered in Crime No.83/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Whereas, complaint filed by father of injured Venkatesh was registered in Crime No.84/2011 against 7 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC.

8. Main contention urged by appellant - complainant before this Court is that contrary to the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 dated 16.11.2011 and overlooking and ignoring the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3489/2014 dated 25.06.2014, the Court below has disposed of S.C.No.29/2012 (case out of which present appeal arises) without following the due procedure. It is urged that though this Court had ordered for expunging the evidence already recorded and had issued a direction that separate prosecutor had to be appointed in both the cases and the trial shall be thereafter proceeded, the Court below has disposed of the case based on the evidence already recorded and without appointing separa