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

- 3 -

under Sections 326, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').

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.

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

- 4 -

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.

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

- 5 -

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 8^th rib on the right side and linear fracture of the

right nasal bone which in the opinion of the Doctor were

grievous in nature. He contended that the injuries were caused

to the complainant/PW.1 by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein

- 6 -

by an iron rod and a stick respectively and the Trial Court and

the Appellate Court were theref