The prosecution must prove all elements of an offence beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to a conviction modification from Section 307 to Section 324 IPC.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

2. Appellant is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Spl.C.C.No.306/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay Rs.1,000/- fine for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC . For the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC , he has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the appeal are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged with Harohalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 341, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act'). The complaint averments reveal that on 26.09.2007 at about 8:00 A.M., when the complainant was proceeding on the public road to reach Harohalli, pursuant to previous enmity, the accused picked up a quarrel and abused him in filthy language taking out his caste name with an intention to degrade him in public view and also gave him a life threat.

4. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered the case and investigated the matter and filed chargesheet for the aforesaid offences.

5. Presence of the accused was secured by the learned Special Judge and cognizance was taken. On due compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed for the aforesaid offences by the learned Special Judge. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 comprising of complainant, mahazar witnesses, circumstantial witnesses, Doctor, who issued the wound certificate and the Investigating Officer.

7. The Prosecution proceeded to place on record eight documentary evidence on record as Exhibits P.1 to P.8 comprising of complaint, spot mahazar, wound certificate, opinion of the Doctor with regard to the weapon used in the incident and FIR.

8. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, contradictions were elicited with regard to Exhibits D.1 to D.3. The weapon used in the incident is marked as M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

9. On completion of recording evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned Special Judge. Accused has denied all incriminating materials found against him in the prosecution case but he did not choose to place his version on record by furnishing any written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C., nor placed any defence evidence on record.

10. Thereafter, learned Special Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act but convicted the appellant and sentenced as referred to supra.

11. The State or the de-facto complainant did not file any appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and therefore, it has attained finality.

12. Accused has filed the present appeal challenging the validity of the impugned judgment wherein accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC .

13. Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, contended that absolutely, there is no material on record, which would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and the appeal needs to be allowed.

14. He would further contend that at the most, the material on record may indicate that there was altercation on the date of incident inasmuch as it is the complainant, who has come near the house of the appellant and picked up the quarrel. Therefore, the prosecution su