The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. G.S.Balagangadhar, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that on 12/11/2006 at about 7.00 am near the house of the accused situated at Attimaranahalli Village within K.R. Pet town police limit, the P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of accused questioning him the act of harvesting the maize crop grown by the P.W.1 at his land, the accused picked up a quarrel with the P.W.1 and assaulted him with the iron chain inflicting the injury on his back, head and other parts of the body as well as assaulted on his right thumb inflicting grievous injury. It is also stated that, the accused also assaulted P.W.2 on his back, head and cheek causing simple injuries, when P.W.2 came to rescue of P.W.1 and hence, invoked the offence punishable under Ss. 326 and 324 of IPC.

3. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused and secured the accused before the trial Court and accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7, among them P.W.1 and 2 are the injured witnesses; P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses; P.W.5 is the doctor who treated the P.W.1 and 2; P.W.6 is the mahazer witness and P.W.7 is an investigating officer. The prosecution got marked five documents as Ex.P1 to P5(a) and one material object as M.O.1. The trial Court after considering both the oral as well as documentary evidence, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 326 and 324 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.2,000.00 respectively for the said offences and also awarded default sentence.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner herein has filed a criminal appeal No.25/2010 before the Appellate Court. The appellate Court on reappriciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, present petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner in his argument, vehemently contended that the incident was taken place at 7.00 a.m. and Ex.P1- complaint discloses that the complaint was lodged at 10.00 am, on the very same day and he also brought to notice of this Court that an endorsement available in the FIR is submitted to the Court on the next day i.e., on 13/11/2006 along with the original complaint at 10.30 a.m. as such, there is a delay in sending the FIR. In the meanwhile, mahazar was conducted in terms of Ex.P2. But Ex.P2 - Mahazar was not placed before the Court immediately. The Amicus Curiae also vehemently contended that though the prosecution invoked the offence under Sec. 326 of IPC, X-ray is not produced before the Court. He further vehemently contended that P.W.6 is the mahzar witness regarding seizure of the weapon used for committing the offence, he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Inspite of the same, the trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner and passed the sentence. With regard to the sentence also, learned Amicus Curiae contended that the injured P.W.1 and the accused are the brothers and it is also emerged in the evidence of P.W.1 that the partition was taken place about twenty years ago and there is a dispute with regard to harvesting of the crop and incident was suddenly taken place when the injured went to the house of accused-petitioner and questioned the act of the petitioner and also the same has not been considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court regarding sentence part is concerned and the sentence imposed is also too harsh and the nature of injury sustained by the P.W.1 is also fracture to the thumb but not on vital part and hence, requires interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that P.Ws. 1 and