Evidence must establish all elements of the offense charged, and modifications of sentences may consider the accused's age and health conditions.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 14.10.2014 passed in SC.No.62/2012 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore (for short 'the trial Court').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to the same rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the K.R.Nagara police have submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 333, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05.06.2009 at about 10.30 am, when CW1/PW1 working in Room No.2 (Dressing room), Government Hospital, K.R.Nagara, the accused has prevented PW1 from discharging his duty as a public servant and assaulted him with club on his right forearm causing grievous hurt and assaulted him with hands on his left-side chest and also on neck and abused him in filthy language and put threat to his life thereby causing criminal intimidation. Thus, the accused has committed the aforesaid offence.

4. After filing of charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and case was registered in CC.No.381/2009. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in SC.No.62/2012. Accused appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. On hearing the charges, charges framed against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under sections 333, 504 and 506B of IPC. The same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7. Eight documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P8. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence under sections 333, 504 and 506 of IPC and passed a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 333 of IPC. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under section 506 of IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 504 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Though the appellant has urged several grounds in the memorandum of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he will restrict his argument only for modification of sentence and he is not going to press on the merits of the case except under section 333 of IPC. Further, he would submit that the accused is aged 77 years and he is suffering from cancer and the accused has already undergone sentence for a period of six months. During the course of prosecution side evidence, NCR challan is marked as Exhibit D1. It is submitted that the entire fine amount is already deposited by the accused. Hence, he sought for modification of sentence passed against the appellant/accused. To substantiate his argument he has produced the certificate issued by the General Hospital, K.R.Nagara, Mysore.

7. The learned High Court Government Pl