Point of Law: Rights of victim and Society at large must be kept in mind – prolonged trial is no ground to reduce sentence to meager sentence.

ORDER :

1. Appellant/accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed criminal revision petition No.100181/2014 and appellant/State has filed criminal appeal No.100065/2014 feeling aggrieved by judgment of the first appellate Court on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, at Ballari, in Criminal Appeal No.138/2012 dated 06.09.2013.

2. Appellants/accused have challenged the modified judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court. Whereas appellant/State has challenged the adequacy of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 323 R/w 34 of IPC.

3. Parties to the revision petition and appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 05.02.2011 at about 9.30 P.M. while complainant was going to his agricultural land, found accused no.1 was storing mud so as to obstruct the free flow of water in canal. The complainant has asked accused No.1 not to store mud which can cause obstruction for free flow of water. However, accused No.1 started abusing in filthy language and by caught holding both his hands bite on the left ear lobe. Due to which upper portion was cut and fell on the ground. On account of accused No.1 biting, the left ear lobe of complainant suffered grievous injury. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have also assaulted complainant with hands. On these allegations made in the complainant, the investigating officer on competition of investigation filed charge sheet.

5. In response to summons, accused appeared through the counsel. The charge came to be framed against both accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to prove the charges leveled against accused relied on oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and documents Exs.P.1 to 4.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, came to be recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2 denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against them and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the accused No.1 only for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2 feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, filed appeal on the file of Principal Session Judge, At: Bellary, in criminal appeal No.138/2012. The first appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on record has partly allowed the appeal and convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 R/w 34 of IPC.

7. Appellants/accused have challenged modified judgment of first appellate Court contending that Courts below have not been properly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded improper finding holding that accused are guilty of offences alleged against them. There was no evidence to show that who has bite on left ear lobe of complainant, since it was dark when the incident took place. On account of dispute over sharing the water through the canal, the present false case is filed by the complainant. The evidence of doctor-P.W.5 is inconsistent with complaint allegations as per Ex.P.1, and independent witness P.Ws. 2 and 3. The approach and appreciation of evidence on record are contrary to law and evidence. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set-aside the judgment of the Courts below. Consequently, to acquit the accused from the charges leveled against him.

8. The State in criminal appeal No.100065/2014 is challenged the adequacy of sentence imposed by the first appellate Court for the proved offences under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC.

9. In response to notice, in criminal revision petition No.100181/2014 learned High Court Government Pleader appeared for respondent and in criminal appeal No.100065/2014