The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony before acting upon the testimony of a single witness.

JUDGMENT :

K.Somashekar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.50/2013 dtd. 28/5/2014 convicting the accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants herein, for offences punishable under Ss. 324 and 342 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860. Further, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 IPC and they have been further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each and in default to undergo S.I. for one month for the offences punishable under Sec. 342 read with Sec. 34 IPC. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking for consideration of the grounds urged and consequently to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court and further seeking acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offences, for the grounds urged therein.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Kemparaju for appellant and so also the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.50/2013 dtd. 28/5/2014 and so also the evidence of PW-1 to PW-11 inclusive of the documents at Exhibits P1 to P7 and material objects at MO-1 to MO-3.

3. Factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It transpires from the case of the prosecution that on 14/5/2012 at around 8.30 a.m. in Talagawadi village the complainant was said to be proceeding in front of the house of Accused No.1 namely Puttasiddamma. Due to an earlier enmity, Accused Nos.1 and 2 had joined together and Accused No.1/Puttasiddamma had caught hold of the shirt collar of the complainant Sathisha and dragged him to her house and thus wrongfully restrained him. In the meanwhile, Accused No.2/Samandaiah is alleged to have assaulted the complainant on his head with means of a bamboo club. Accused No.1 had then brought a plastic rope and had tied the same to his body, with an intention to cause his death. Both Accused Nos.1 and 2 had also told that he has to die in that position itself. But thereafter, on seeing CWs 2 to 5 who had come to rescue the complainant, Accused Nos.1 and 2 had untied the complainant Sathisha. However, Accused Nos.1 and 2 had wrongfully restrained PW-1 Sathisha and also had assaulted him with means of a bamboo club, as a result causing simple injuries. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of a complaint by the complainant, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P7 for offences under Ss. 324 and 342 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860. Subsequent to registration of the crime by recording an FIR, criminal law was set into motion and thereafter the I.O. has taken up the case for investigation and conducted thorough investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the Committal Court whereby the Committal Court had passed an order under Sec. 209 of the Cr.P.C. by following the provisions of Ss. 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequent to committing the case for trial to the Sessions Court, the case in S.C.No.50/2013 has been assigned whereby the charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Ss. 341 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860 and so also charges were framed for offences punishable under Sec. 308 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, 1860. Alternatively, facing of trial for charges framed against them under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC.

The accused did not plead guilty but claims to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused was recorded. Subsequent to framing of charges, the prosecution had let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-11 and so also got marked Exhibits P1 to P7 inclusive of MO-1 to MO-3. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination as contemplated under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. for enabling the accused to respond to the incrimina