Point of Law : Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that merit of the statement is important and it is well known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement.

ORDER :

Heard, Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel for the petitioners namely, Smt. Sheku Bai, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in CC No.527/2007 relating to the case in Criminal Appeal No.29/2015 whereby filing of criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.R.P.No.200092/2016 by challenging the order passed by the fist appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 and whereby seeking setting aside of the order and confirm the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in CC No.527/2018 dated 20.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Whereas, Crl.R.P.No.200023/2017 is filed by Smt. Iramma, Neelakantha and Kum. Mahananda who are the injured and they have preferred this petition by challenging the order passed by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007 and so also the order passed by the first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015, whereby under this petition seeking to convict the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 whereby modifying the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 sentencing to pay fine amount held against accused Nos.1 and 2 by the first appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. Whereby, in this petition seeking conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences by suffering to imprisonment for the aforesaid offences in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2 in addition to sentencing them to pay fine as incorporated in the operative portions of the order.

3. Whereas, under this petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court in CC No.527/2007 dated 20.03.2015 and so also divergent finding passed by the first appellate Court in Crl.A.No.29/2015 dated 27.09.2016 by reversal of the acquittal judgment and sentenced to pay fine for the offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, these two petitions have been taken up for passing common order.

4. Heard the learned counsel Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty for the petitioner No.2 in Crl.R.P.No.200092/2016 and so also the counsel be directed to take notice for respondent No.3 who is arrayed as accused No.2 in the trial Court and accordingly the counsel has undertaken to file vakalat. Therefore, the counsel is permitted to file vakalat for accused No.2 in the connected Crl.R.P.No.200023/2017. But, accused No.1 in these two petitions and whereby arrayed as accused No.1 before the trial Court in CC No.527/2017, but the said accused died during the pendency of this revision petition initiated by the aggrieved parties, but for the death of the accused No.1 and the case against him stands abated as under Section 394 (2) of Cr.P.C. However, heard the aforesaid counsel in both the cases.

5. The factual matrix of these petitions are as under;

It transpired from the case of the prosecution that; a complaint has been initiated by the complainant namely, P.W.1-Iramma and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR as per Ex.P.22 by P.W.12 being the ASI of Bagadal P.S. and subsequently the case was taken up by the investigating officer who after thorough investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused persons. Whereas, the complainant said that in his complaint that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have cut the branches of the tree grown in the backyard of the house of the complainant and when the complainant had asked the tree is belonging to the complainant, both the accused have quarreled with the complainant and P.W.2 and 3 who are husband and daughter of P.W.1 were assaulted and abused in filthy language by the accused and the accused caused grievous injures by making use of deadly weapon like stone and criminally intimidated. In pursuance of the act of the accused and the filing of the complaint, a case in Crime No.54/2007 came to be registered by Kushnoor P