The appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient to establish intent for assault.

ORDER :

1. Heard Smt. Vijaya M.N., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner/accused No.2 has preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.12.2016 and order on sentence dated 08.02.2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Sitting at Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2014, wherein the First Appellate Court convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The petitioner is accused No.2 and the respondent is the complainant-State.

4. The case against accused No.1 is split up due to his ill-health and accused No.2 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 326 , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The trial Court acquitted accused No.2 of the aforesaid offences. Hence, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2014, wherein the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court insofar as Sections 504 and 506 of the , however, convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with of the .

5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 17.10.2005 at about 4:30 p.m., in the street adjacent to the house of the first informant at Market Road, Sagar Town, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with the first informant in respect of installation of sanitary pipe, abused her in filthy language, assaulted her with a plastic pipe and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Due to assault, the first informant sustained injury to her left leg little finger. This led to registration of an F.I.R. and investigation.

6. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

7. Soon after initiation of charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.').

8. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined in all eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked five documents as per Exs.P1 to P5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted accused No.2 of the alleged charges. Thus, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court insofar as Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC , however, convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the .

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 has vehemently contended that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is illegal and untenable. The First Appellate Court, while passing the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, has not considered the reasons assigned by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court convicted the petitioner on uncorroborated testimonies of t