The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present petitioner was tried as accused by the Court of learned Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), & J.M.F.C., Madikeri, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial Court') in C.C. No. 357/2007, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'IPC') and was convicted by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.10.2007 and was sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 89/2007, before the Fast Track Court, Kodagu at Madikeri, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dated 27.08.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that on the date 23.11.2006, at about 7.30 a.m., near paddy field of PW-3 K.A. Uthappa in Makkandur village within the limits of complainant-Police Station, when PW-2 - Lingappa objected to the accused for the accused letting his cattles for grazing in the field of PW-3 Uthappa, who was the master of the complainant, the accused voluntarily assaulted the complainant (PW-2) with a club and caused him grievous injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

3. The accused appeared in the trial Court and contested the matter through his counsel. The accused pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all five witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5 and one material object was produced at MO-1. However, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State are physically present in the Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

7. After hearing the learned counsel from both side, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge's Court that the accused committed the alleged offences punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submits that the X-ray report has not been produced by the prosecution. Though the complainant was passed in front of Police Station before going to the hospital, still, he did not lodge the complaint before going to the hospital. He also stated that MO-1 was not smeared with mud though the field was said to be with some mud. With this, he submitted that the case of the prosecution creates a doubt and prays to allow the revision petition.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submits that since both the trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offences, no interference is warranted through this revision petition.

10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the accused, the prosecution got examined five witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5. Among whom, PW-2 Lingappa is the complainant and the alleged victim in the incident. In his evidence he has stated that he has been working under PW-3 K.A. Uthappa and attends to his agricultural work and grazing of the cattles since past four years prior to the incident. On the date 23.11.2006, in the morning at about 7.30 a.m., when he had been to the land of his master alon