The court clarified roles of individual defendants in an assault case, affirming different charges and penalties for each based on evidence of participation.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The revision petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2011 passed in C.C. No.282/2011 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shorapur, convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 324 , 504 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC; to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC; and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, with default sentences, which was confirmed in Crl.A. No.22/2019 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, vide judgment dated 24.08.2020.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel, for the revision petitioners and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadavi, learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State. Perused the materials available on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the revision petitioners have made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court?"

4. My answer to the above point is ‘partly in the Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

5. Even though the petitioners have raised several grounds in the revision petition to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the revision petitioners has restricted his argument only to seek modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused Nos.1 and 2. He has specifically submitted that the petitioners have given up all other grounds urged in the revision petition, except the following.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as per the version of the injured-PW1, it was only accused No.1, who assaulted PW1 with an iron rod – M.O. 1, whereas accused No.2 assaulted him with hands. But the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error while convicting both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

7. It is also his contention that the incident had occurred on 03.06.2011, which was about 14 years back. Therefore, accused No.1 who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC may be sentenced only with fine of Rs.10,000/- instead of imposing substantive sentence. Hence, he prays for allowing the revision petition.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State opposing his submission prays for dismissal of the revision petition. However, he submits that PW1 being the injured eyewitness, PW4 being the eyewitness have stated that it was accused No.1, who assaulted the PW1 with an iron rod and accused No.2 had slapped him.

9. Regarding modification of the sentence, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that it is left to the discretion of the Court.

10. On perusal of the material evidence on record, including the evidence of PW1 being the injured eyewitness, who is the first informant and the evidence of the PW4 - the eyewitness to the incident, it was only accused No.1, who assaulted PW1 with an iron rod – M.O. 1, whereas, accused No.2 assaulted him with hands. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that accused No.2