The court articulated the need for careful evaluation of evidence in criminal convictions, especially concerning the nature of injuries linked to specific charges under IPC.

ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the Judgment dated 02.09.2013 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (for short, 'the Appellate Court') in Crl.A. No.131/2012 by which it allowed the appeal in part and upheld the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence imposed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Turuvekre (for short, 'the Trial Court') in C.C. No.204/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 , 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC ').

2. The petitioners were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 326, 325, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The Trial Court convicted the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 326 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC . The Trial Court sentenced each of the petitioners herein to undergo simple imprisonment for: three years for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC ; ten days for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC ; fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and six months for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC . The Trial Court ordered that all the sentences for the above offences shall run concurrently.

3. In an appeal preferred by the petitioners herein in Crl. A. No.131/2012, the Appellate Court acquitted the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC , but confirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioners herein in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 326 , 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

5. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioners submitted that the material on record did not justify the conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC . He submitted that though PW.1 claimed in Ex.P1 that the petitioner No.1 herein had assaulted him with an iron rod on his head, the wound certificate at Ex.P4 or the copy of the extract of MLC register at Ex.P7 and the X-rays at Exs.P8 and P9 did not show any injury on the head of PW.1. He, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider this relevant fact while convicting and sentencing the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC . He also contended that as per the wound certificate-Ex.P4, the injuries were simple in nature and did not amount to grievous hurt. He, therefore, prayed that the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable 326 of the IPC and the consequent order of sentence passed by the Trial Court which has been upheld by the Appellate Court deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel further contended that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC were wholly unwarranted in view of the past rivalry between the petitioners herein and PW.1 and the Appellate Court was not justified in confirming the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioners herein in respect of the said offences.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the wound certificate - Ex.P4 reveals a fracture of the 8th rib on the right side and linear fracture of the right nasal bone which in the opinion of the Doctor were grievous in natur