JUDGMENT

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The State by PSI, Gandhinagar Police Station, Bellary laid a charge-sheet against the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. After committal proceedings, a case in SC No.69/2004 was registered on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary.

2. The brief facts on which basis the charge sheet was filed are:

The complainant - Mr. Raj Mohan Reddy (PW2) lodged a report stating that he was running a Tea Powder shop in Royal Complex, Bellary. The accused and the complainant are related to each other. The first accused has taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000 from the complainant. In spite of repeated requests and demands, the first accused did not re-pay the said loan amount and he was absconding for more than a year prior to the date of the incident. It is also alleged that the accused No.1 has also taken loan from PW5 Rameshwar Reddy. In order to demand the accused for repayment of the said loan on the date of the incident i.e., on 11.12.2013, PW2 and PW5 went to the shop of the accused persons situated in Royal Complex, Bellary. In fact, the accused persons started abusing the PW2 and PW5, with filthy language, assaulted PW2 with a knife on the eye and chest, and PW5 on his back, caused bleeding injuries, and also threatened them with dire consequences of killing them. PW2 sustained severe injuries on his left eye and on the chest. PW5 sustained injuries on the back portion. They took treatment in VIMS Hospital and thereafter, lodged a complaint against the accused persons.

3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307, 504 and 506 r/w, Section 34 of IPC.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, examined P’Ws 1to 14 and got marked Exs. Pl to P7 and MOs. 1 to 5. The accused persons were also examined by the Court under Section313 Cr.P.C. and their statements were recorded. The accused did not choose to lead evidence on their side but by way of confronting some documents, the accused persons have got marked Exhibits D7 and D8. After arguments and detailed evaluation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court had concluded that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the Al and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and also convicted A1, acquitted A2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. However, acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The said judgment and sentence is called in question before this Court.

5. The appellants challenged the above said judgment and sentence on the following grounds:

(1) The Trial Court has failed to consider the counter plea of the accuse, evidence in the counter case and approached the entire evidence in a confused manner.

(2) The court below drawn inferences on the basis of the evidence of PWs 2 and 5. However, the Trial Court ought to have held that PWs.2 and 5 were the aggressors who are responsible for causing injuries to the appellants as well as the wife of accused No.1.

(3) The court below failed to note the importance of cross examination of PWs 2 and 5 and their associates and the court below has not properly under stood the case of the accused persons and the complainant and passed the erroneous judgment.

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State.

7. The point that would arise for consideration before this court is:

(1) Whether the Trial Court has committed any serious error either in law or in appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in convicting the appellants and sentencing them accordingly?

(2) What order?

8. My answer to the above Point No.1 is partly in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following reasons:

The learned Counsel for the appellants strenuou