JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the learned Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “trial Court”) in Spl.C.C.No.22/2010, by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18.12.2013, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’) and sentenced him accordingly.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 3.4.2010, near Lakshmidevana Kote Bus Stand, within the limits of complainant-Police Station, when PW1 Manjunatha demanded for return of his jeans jacket from accused No.1, he abused the complainant in filthy language and also insulted him by taking the name of the caste and on the same day night at about 8.30, the accused No.1 armed with deadly weapon i.e., chopper, went to the house of PW1 and making criminal trespass into his house with an intention to commit criminal offence, dragged PW1 out of his house and assaulted him with the chopper he was possessing voluntarily causing grievous hurt. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 also abused PW1 in filthy language taking the name of his caste and when CW2 (PW2) tried to rescue his brother (PW1), he was also assaulted by the accused and thereby have committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 448, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `SC/ST Act’).

3. Charges were framed against the accused for the alleged offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses from PWs.1 to PW15 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P16 and material objects from MO1 to MO3 were marked. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits.

4. After hearing the arguments from both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18.12.2013, acquitted all the three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. It also acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 from the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, it convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.

5. The respondent – State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader.

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

7. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal and the records from the trial Court.

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

9. In view of the above, the points that arise for my consideration are :

1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 3.4.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., near his house within the jurisdiction of respondent-Police Station, the accused No.1 assaulted PW1 – Manjunatha with a chopper causing bleeding injuries and voluntarily caused hurt, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC?

2) Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court?

10. Among the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 (CW1) Manjunatha is the complainant and injured in this case. The said witness in his evidence has stated that about three to four months earlier to the incident, he had given his jeans jacket to one Sri Anand (PW3). In turn, said Anand had given the said jacket to accused No.1 requesting him to deliver it to PW1. About three to four months thereafter, said Anand met