The court affirmed conviction under IPC for causing injuries and applied the Probation of Offenders Act due to familial relationships and nature of the offence.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 22.01.2013 passed in S.C.No.137/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The Trial Court has ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.5,000/- to PW2 and Rs.1,000/- to PW3 and the same has to be paid by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case are as under;

The complainant – PW1 is the daughter of first wife of late Sri.Rangegowda. There was a dispute with regard to the agricultural land between the children of first wife and children of second wife of late Sri.Rangegowda. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the children of late Sri.Rangegowda by his second wife. The dispute with respect to agricultural land was existed between the family members of first wife and second wife’s children and it is pending in a suit before the Civil Court. That, on 30.05.2010, the complainant – PW1 along with the family members went to the land and there was a quarrel between them and the accused persons. At that time, she went to inform the same to her husband and was found near Maramma temple. Accused No.1 armed with club and accused No.2 armed with machete assaulted PW2 on the back side of the head and caused bleeding injuries. At that time, PW3 – brother of PW2 intervened to pacify the quarrel and accused No.4, assaulted him with the wooden repiece and also kicked on his chest. Accused No.3 with a stone assaulted PW2 on his body. At that time, PWs.4, 5 and others pacified the quarrel. PW1 filed a complaint and a case came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC . The police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet for the said offences. After committal, the Sessions Court framed the charge against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences.

3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 7. The statement of the accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments, has formulated the points for consideration and after appreciating the evidence on record, has passed the judgment of conviction, convicting the appellants – accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, as stated above and acquitted accused No.3. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged in this appeal.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that on perusal of the cross examination of PW4, it is clear that he is not an eye witness, as, by the time he came there, the quarrel was over. Another eye witness – PW5 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even Panchas to Ex.P4 – seizure of weapons, namely PW6 and Panchas to Ex.P2 – seizure of clothes, namely PW7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the said mahazars have not been proved. He further submits that the case put forth by the prosecution is not consistent. The alleged spot is near Maramma temple which is a public place and no publi