The appellate court erred by reversing the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence to substantiate grievous hurt, emphasizing the necessity for cogent proof in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

G BASAVARAJA, J.

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.03.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.149/2014 by the Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Judge at Channarayapattana (for short "the first appellate Court"), whereby the judgment of acquittal dated: 05.06.2014 passed in C.C. No.423/2013 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapattana (for short " the trial court"), came to be set aside

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

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hirisave Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04^th October, 2008 at about 10.30 am, a panchayat was conducted in property bearing Sy.No.81 in respect of the properties of the complainant-Sri Kapanigowda. At that time, the accused contending that no proper panchayat was conducted in their favour, hence, accused No.1 abused CW2 in filthy language. At that time, the accused No.2 assaulted CW2 on his head with a sickle resulting in bleeding injury and the accused No.1 also assaulted CW2 by his hands resulting in pain and the accused No.4 assaulted CW2 and all the accused threatened the CW2 with dire consequences. Accordingly, CW1 has lodged the complaint.

5. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the commission of alleged offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, six witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 6 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 and one material object marked as MO.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 323 , 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the appeal before the Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Court at Channarayapatna, in Crl. Apl. No.149 of 2014. The appeal came to be allowed and acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court in CC No.423 of 2013 dated 05^th June 2014, was set aside. Consequently, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and the trial Court sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with of Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 to 3 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 504 read with of IPC . Accused were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and further accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 326 read with of Indian Penal Code.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants have prefer