The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the panchanama to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence of assault under Section 324 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appellant was the sole accused in Sessions Case No.132/2013 in the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Mysore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Trial Court'), who, by the judgment of the said Trial Court dated 02-04-2014 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and was sentenced accordingly. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 15-01-2012 at about 8:30 a.m., when PW-1 - Smt. Pushpa and PW-3 - Smt. Saraswathi were proceeding in front of the house of the accused talking inter se that, some body had cut the beetle leaves grown by them in their land and have caused damage to their standing crop, the accused, who over heard it, came out of his house and telling that it was he who had cut the same and challenging them to do whatever they wanted to do against him, assaulted both PW-1 and PW-3 with Machete and club and caused injuries to them and attempted to kill PW-3 Saraswathi. He also tore the blouse worn by PW-1 - Smt. Pushpa and thus has committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 354 of IPC.

3. The charges for the alleged offences were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined in all, ten witnesses from PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked documents from exhibits P-1 to P-12 and five Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-5. Though the accused did not examine any witness from his side, however, a portion of the statement of PW-5 was marked as Ex.D-1 in the cross-examination of the said witness.

4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 02-04-2014 and order on sentence dated 07-04-2014, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

5. The trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.

7. Perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgment and also Trial Court records.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused in his arguments submitted that it is not in dispute that the accused is the cousin brother of PW-5 Prakasha, which Prakasha is the husband of PW-1 - Smt. Pusha and PW-3 Smt. Saraswathi. He further submits that it is also not in dispute that there was some dispute between PW-5 and the accused with respect to their lands.

Learned counsel further submits that though PW-1 and PW-3 might have sustained some injuries, same is with regard to some altercation, wherein, PW-1 and PW-3 tried to pull the shirt of the accused and fell by themselves on the ground by loosing balance and sustained injuries.

Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 varies inter se in as much as the evidence of PW-3 Saraswathi that the accused also sprinkled chilli powder on her eyes does not find any place in her statement given before the Investigating Officer.

Learned counsel also submits that as per the Doctor, the injured have given the history stating that the assault was by using a stone, whereas the alleged weapon produced by the prosecution as the weapons of commissioning the crime was a Machete at MO-1 and a club at MO-2.

Learned counsel continuing his argument regarding mismanaging of the description of the weapons further says that, there is no evidence as to who gave the said MO-1 and MO-2 to t