ORDER :

This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused seeking to set aside his conviction and sentence passed in CC No.897/2000 dated 24.02.2010 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Bhadravathi and judgment and order dated 18.09.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Bhadravathi in Crl.A.No.18/2010, whereby he was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused – petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.01.2000 at about 3.00 p.m., at Arabilachi, Vaddarahatti village, Bhadravathi Taluk, in the background of a marital dispute between the accused and the complainant, when the complainant (PW1) refused to withdraw the petition filed by her for maintenance, the accused abused her in filthy language and intentionally insulted her so as to provoke breach of peace and assaulted her with stone and knife and caused simple as well as grievous injuries on her forehead, chin and neck and also criminally intimidated her of dire consequences and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 and 506 of IPC.

4. Before the trial court, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the accused for the aforesaid charged offences.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the said appeal also came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the courts below without properly appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has erroneously convicted the accused relying on the evidence of the interested testimony of prosecution witnesses. He submits that the evidence on record suffers from legal infirmity and not corroborated to each other. He submits that PWs.5 to 7 and 9 have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. He contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the grievous injuries suffered by the victim – PW1 by examining the doctor. The prosecution has also not produced and marked the x-ray to establish that PW1 suffered fracture as mentioned in the wound certificate. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the revision petition.

7. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his case:

(i) Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 SC 2192.

(ii) Crl.RP No.789/2011 in the case of Chidananda and Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka disposed on 11.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

(iii) Crl.A.No.3721/2010 connected with Crl.A.No.3611/2013 in the case of Chanabasappa and others vs. The State of Karnataka, disposed on 10.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

8. Per contra, the learned HCGP has contended that both the courts have concurrently held that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He contends that PW1 is the victim and she is the wife of the accused. She has categorically narrated about the incident and her evidence is further supported by the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident. He submits that Ex.P10 is the wound certificate which clearly discloses that PW1 has suffered grievous injuries and therefore non examination of doctor is not a ground to discard the evidence of PW1. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the revision petition.

9. PW1 the victim in her evidence has stated that for the last ten years she was residing separately due to ill-treatment given by the accused. The accused has married second wife without her consent about 10-12 years back. He has not taken divorce from he