The main legal point established is the reliance on victim testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial witnesses to support the conviction for assault offences, and the court's exercise of revisional powers to rectify sentencing errors.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21/8/2019 at about 1.00 p.m., near the land of Koththi Puttaiah at Kempisiddanahundi village, with common intention, all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons like chopper and machchu and committed an offence of rioting against PW1 and accused No.1 wrongfully restrained PW1 when he was proceeding in the motorcycle and caused grievous hurt to PW1 by chopper, as a result, PW1 had sustained injury to his right middle finger, accused Nos.3 to 5 caused simple injuries by chopper to the right foot, left arm and right elbow of PW1 and also intimidated PW1 with an intention to cause alarm to PW1. Based on the compliant, the police have registered the case for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 324 and 506 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. The injured was taken to the hospital and took treatment firstly at Nanjangud hospital and thereafter at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru for a period of 16 days. The police after the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Accused persons have not pleaded guilty and hence, the prosecution in order to prove its case, examined the eleven witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8 and also marked MO1 - three choppers. The petitioners have not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the petitioners herein for all the offences. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.150/2012 and the Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioners have filed the revision petition before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in convicting the petitioners and also not properly appreciated the evidence on record and even the prosecution has not placed any cogent material to prove that these petitioners have committed the alleged offences. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though the case of the prosecution is that PW1 has sustained injuries and fracture, in order to prove the same, x-ray is not marked before the Trial Court and inspite of that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the petitioners herein. The counsel in support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench this Court reported in (2011) 4 KCCR 2759. The counsel referring the said judgment vehemently contend that this Court in paragraph 18 made an observation that it is the duty of the prosecution to place the xray to prove the factum of fracture and only the doctor on clinical examination of the injured, gave the opinion that he had suffered with the fracture.

4. Regarding sentence part is concerned, the counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Trial Court has committed an error in imposing the sentence for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of IPC with fine and sentenced for a period of one year the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of IPC with fine and for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 148 of IPC along with fine and the same is also not considered by the Appellate Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that except the evidence of PW1, no other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have considered only the evidences of PW1, PW6 and PW9 and the nature of the injury is also only a fracture to the middle finger not on any vital part of the body and the same will not affects the life of the victim and