The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of the injured witness and corroborative medical evidence despite minor discrepancies.

ORAL ORDER

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

2. This criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC . Though the Trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 324, 341, 504 , 506B read with Section 149 of IPC , the same is modified by the Appellate Court acquitting them for other offences and confirmed the same for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC .

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 29.04.2011 at about 7.10 a.m. near the complainant’s house situated at Billakempanahalli Village, all the accused with common object to commit the offences indulged in quarrel with the complainant in connection with usage of 8 feet road and out of them, Chikkahanumanthaiah @ Kuruda assaulted the complainant with rod and Lokesh assaulted the complainant with wooden stick. Padma, Saroja and Rathnamma attempted to pour acid on the complainant’s wife by name Muthamma and son by name Rudraiah. All the accused abused the complainant in a filthy language and accused No.3 Narasimhaiah and accused No.4 Harish caused threat to the complainant with dire consequences by showing the sickle. When the accused were assaulting the complainant’s wife, Narasimhaiah, Ramanna and Thammaiah intervened and subsided the quarrel. In view of the said incident, the complaint was lodged and crime was registered in Crime No.260/2011 and the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 324, 341, 354, 504 , 506B read with Section 149 of IPC . The accused persons were secured and they did not plead guilty and hence trial was made by the prosecution and P.W.1 to P.W.9 are examined and Exs.P.1 to 4 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked and 313 statement of the accused was recorded and accused did not plead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 324, 341 , 504 and 506B read with 149 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354 read with 149 of IPC .

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted all the accused persons for other offences and only confirmed the sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal order passed by Appellate Court. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this revision petition before this Court challenging the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC .

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint is dated 29.04.2011 and the same was lodged at 10.00 a.m., though allegedly the incident was taken place at 7.10 a.m. The learned counsel would contend that there are no any independent witnesses. The learned counsel contend that P.W.7 is the recovery witness and he says that the police have not seized the rod and club, but the witnesses have given the same. The learned counsel contend that the material clearly discloses that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to usage of passage of 8 feet. The learned counsel contend that the complainant has converted the civil dispute as criminal case. The evidence of P.W.2 is that the incident took place at night and P.W.3 also deposed to the same effect. There are several inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, par