The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the medical report to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Additionally, the court emphasized the mandatory duty of considering grant of probation for first-time offenders.

JUDGMENT :

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.9/2013 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi are challenging the validity of the judgment dated 27.06.2014 in this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under;

Upon the complaint lodged by Sri Yousuf S/o Gaji Ansari, Aland Police registered a case in crime No.143/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 R/W Sec.34 of IPC . In the complaint it is contended that daughter of his relative was married to one Wasim and there was a harassment to daughter of Maqthar Ahmed and he had participated in a panchayat in regard to the said dispute. Thereafter, Bilal Ansari and others nurtured enmity against him. In pursuance to said enmity, on 12.7.2012 at about 11.30 p.m. when himself Idrish and others were chitchatting on the staircase of Mashaq Dargah, Bilal Ansari and others abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him with an iron rod and also gave a life threat. Iqbal Ansari assaulted him with a bottle on his head causing blood injury and tried to take away his life. Quarrel was pacified by Idrish and others and the accused party gave a life threat and ran away from the spot.

After registering the case, police investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet against six persons including the present appellants.

3. Presence of accused was secured and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial was held. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused ten witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 10 and five documents were relied which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to P.5. Two material objects viz., iron rod and broken bottle were marked as M.Os.1 and 2.

4. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances put to them. There is no defence evidence; version of the accused to the incident is placed in writing.

5. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties in detail, acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 (appellants) for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Sessions Judge has also ordered, out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.3,000/-be paid as compensation to the injured U/S. 357 Cr.P.C.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants are before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

8. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Judge for conviction of appellants is erroneous. He further argued that PWs.2 to 7 are relatives of PW.1 and their testimony is interested testimony. He further argued when accused Nos.3 to 6 having been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, there was no special circumstances which persuaded the learned Sessions Judge to convict present appellants. Evidence of the doctor coupled with the wound certificate raise a sufficient doubt as to the ocular testimony of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and such doubt should always enure to the benefit of the accused and thus sought for allowing the appeal.

9. Alternatively, he submitted that in the event of this Court maintaining the conviction order, since the accused are first time offenders this Court may consider grant of probation.

10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the material available on record clearly establishes the assault made by accused Nos.1 and 2 with M.Os.1 and 2 on the day of incident to PW.1. He also argued that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses should be considered on higher pedestal and there is no reason for PW.1 to falsely implicate the accused persons in the incident.

11. He lastl