The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the injury and the application of the appropriate section of the IPC, leading to the grant of probation to the accused.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Sri Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

2. The present revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dtd. 15/12/2015 passed in C.C.No.1343/2013 by I-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II at Bidar, whereby the accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 326, 504 and 506 of IPC and confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Criminal Appeal No.52/2015 by judgment dtd. 20/10/2016.

3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

The prosecution alleged that Munnemma, being the close relative of the complainant, is the wife of the accused. The accused used to suspect her chastity and used to physically harass her. The complainant enquired the grievances of Munnemma over telephone and advised Munnemma and accused maintained cordial relationship with her. Thereafterwards, it is revealed that in respect of an autorickshaw, the relationship between Munnemma and her husband got strained. When the matter stood thus, on 8/5/2013 at about 8.00 p.m., when the complainant called Munnemma over telephone, the accused received the telephone call and started abusing the complainant in filthy language and questioned him as to what is the relationship he is having with Munnemma. On the same day, at about 10.00 p.m., when the complainant was standing outside his house, one Jaganath Shetkar along with Sidram Shetkar and Kashinath accompanied the accused, came to him and questioned him as to why he is talking to the wife of the accused and what is the relationship that is existing between the complainant and wife of the accused and all of a sudden, attacked the complainant and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with knife on the left side of the rib causing grievous injuries to the complainant which resulted in filing a complaint before Bidar Rural Police for the aforesaid offences.

4. After registering the case and after conducting detailed investigation, Bidar Rural Police filed a chargesheet against the accused.

5. The presence of the accused was secured before the jurisdictional Magistrate and necessary charges were framed for the aforesaid offences.

6. Since the accused person did not plead guilty, the trial was held.

7. In the Trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all, 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as PWs.1 to 8 and 6 documentary evidence were relied upon by the prosecution which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P6 and one material object namely the knife was also marked as M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

8. Thereafterwards, the accused statement as contemplated under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded before the learned Magistrate wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances that were found against the accused and did not offer any explanation in writing as is contemplated under Sec. 313(5) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate heard the parties and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed an order of conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 326, 504 and 506 of IPC and passed the following sentence:

"Accused is convicted for the offence u/s 326 of IPC . He is sentenced to undergo S.I for 2 years and accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3000.00.

Accused is convicted for the offence u/s 504 of IPC . He is sentenced to undergo S.I for 3 months.

Accused is convicted for the offence u/s 506 of IPC . He is sentenced to undergo S.I for 3 months.

Out of the fine amount of Rs.3000.00 (Three thousand), Rs.2000.00 is ordered to be paid to the PW-1 as compensation.

All these sentences shall run concurrently.

Office is directed to supply free copy of this judgment to the accused."

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principa