ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State.

2. The present revision petition is filed against the order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323 and 324 of IPC and confirming and modifying the order of the Trial Court by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5003/2019, wherein sentence is modified in respect of the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, wherein accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- instead of sentence of six months and enhanced the fine from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- confirming the conviction and sentence in respect of all the offences.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of that the mandatory requirement of Sections 323, 324 and 353 of IPC has not been established by the prosecution as against the petitioner for conviction. In the absence of required ingredients for punishment under the said mandatory provision, the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner. P.W.1 to P.W.3 have never stated exact abusing words uttered by the petitioner and it requires interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submits that the scope and ambit of revision petition is very limited. Both the Courts taken note of the evidence available on record i.e., injured witnesses evidence and also the medical evidence of the doctor who has been examined before the Trial Court as P.W.6, who noted the injuries and immediately after the incident the injured went and took treatment and nothing is placed on record to interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, this matter is listed for admission and while considering the revision petition, this Court has to take note of the scope and ambit of revision. If the Court comes to the conclusion that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record and if finding is perverse, then the Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The only contention urged before this Court in this revision petition is that the mandatory requirement of Sections 323, 324 and 353 of IPC has not been complied.

6. Having perused the material available on record, the specific case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 30.07.2016, C.W.1 to C.W.3 being Linemen of MESCOM, Kudligere Division, Bhadravathi Taluk were deputed to collect electricity bills due from the villagers of Aralihalli Village, Bhadravathi Taluk. On that day at about 10.50 a.m. when they had been to the said village and went to the house of accused No.1 to collect the electricity bill due pertaining to RR No.AH.1419 provided to the house of accused No.1 situated behind the Masjid along with disconnect memo issued by their higher officer and asked the accused persons to pay the unpaid electricity bill of Rs.470/-, accused No.1 told them that he did not have money and he will pay the same shortly. For that C.W.1 informed him that if he failed to pay the amount, he will disconnect the electricity connection and when he moved to disconnect the electricity connection, accused No.1 abused him with foul language by holding his shirt collar and dragged him, assaulted him with hands on his chest and right cheek. When C.W.2 came to extricate the galata, accused No.1 assaulted with areca stick on his back and when C.W.3 came to extricate the galata, accused No.2 abused him and thereby prevented them from discharging their duty as public servants.

7. Charges have been framed and the same has been denied and hence the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of C.W.1 to C.W.9. C.W.1 to C.W.3 are the eye- witnesses and P.W.6 is the doctor who treated the injured P.W.1 and P.W.2 a