The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's analysis of the evidence, including witness testimony and medical evidence, to determine the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506, and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

H.P. Sandesh, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No.70/2009 on the file of the Special (Sessions Judge), Bagalkot, dated 2/8/2010 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant-Hasanappa Kashappa Chalawadi who has been examined as PW-1 gave a written complaint to PW-16, the Police Sub Inspector of the complaint police station on 16/5/2009 in the night that while he was going to his house passing in front of the house of Dayanand Nadagouda and at that time, he saw the Mahantesh Patil, and while proceedings he enquired him whether he is going to celebrate the win of BJP party at Bagalkot election, by burning the crackers. At that time, the accused who was also present along with him objected to the same and abused him in a filthylanguage taking his caste name and also the accused taking the wooden stick, which is of agricultural implement assaulted the complainant. When the said incident was witnessed by Mahantesh Patil and Sharanappagouda Patil, they came to rescue the complainant and this accused bitten the Mahantesh Patil on his right thumb and also on the right ear of Sharanappagouda. When the hue and cry was taken place, the other people also gathered in the place of incident and pacified the galata. The accused while going caused the life threat and hence, on receipt of the complaint, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who continued the investigation and filed charge sheet for all the offences.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined PWs.-1 to 16 and also relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P16(a) and also relied upon the material object wooden stick as M.O.1. The Court below after hearing both the parties convicted the accused for all the offences except offence under Section 5060 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment and to pay fine. The main contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the Court below failed to appreciate the lot of material contradictions between the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 and in fact, the father of PW-4 who has been examined as PW-5 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to the prosecution, PW-5 is the eye witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution and PW- 3 is also did not support of the case of the prosecution who is also eye witnesses. According to the prosecution, he was not in the village on the date of the alleged incident. PWs.- 7, 8 and 9 have turned hostile and who allegedly are an eye witnesses to the incident. The Court below only considering the evidence of interested persons and in the absence of independent eye witnesses committed an error in convicting the accused. The medical evidence of PW-14 shows that injuries sustained by PW1 is grievous in nature and injuries caused by PWs.4 and 5 are simple in nature and categorically admitted that the said injuries can be caused if a person fallen on a sharp stone and when these material are available, the Court below erroneously convicted the appellant-accused. The other panch witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and the very conviction and sentence is otherwise improper and it requires the interference of this Court and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.

4. Though the appellant represented through counsel and filed appeal through counsel the counsel did not chose to appear in spite of an opportunity is given and in the previous occasion also he took the time, but when the matter is listed for final hearing, did not choose to appear. Junior counsel seeks time again and the