ORDER

Heard Sri. Manoj H.C and the learned High Court Government Pleader. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.483/2014 confirmed in the Crl.A.No.32/2019.

2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision are as under: On receipt of a complaint by the Channapatna Rural Police Station, Police registered a case in Crime No.370/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. On thorough investigation charge sheet came to be filed and the matter was tried in CC.No.483/2014. Complaint averments reveals that on 18.10.2013 at about 07:30 a.m., in Patlu village within the limits of Channapatna Rural Police, there was a scuffle and all the accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant and CW.2 and abused them in filthy language and assaulted them, resulting in blood injury and also fracture injury to the middle finger of the right hand to CW.2.

4. Since the accused persons did not plead guilty, Trial was held. In order to prove the case of the prosecution in all 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution as PW.1 to PW.9 and 6 documentary evidence were placed on record which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 comprising of complaint, Mahazar, wound certificates and RTC extracts.

5. Among the prosecution witnesses, Chandrashekhar is examined as PW.1 and Lokesha is examined as PW.2 and doctors who have issued Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are marked as PW.3 and PW.4. Mahazar witnesses and the Investigation Officer are other witnesses.

6. On conclusion of the recording of the prosecution evidence, accused statements as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate wherein accused persons have denied all the incriminating circumstances and did not choose to place any material on record in defence evidence nor any written statements as contemplated under Section 313(4) Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate, heard both the parties and on consideration of the material evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

8. State did not choose to file any appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC but accused persons preferred appeal against order of conviction under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

9. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the accused confirmed in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence by judgment dated 5th December 2020.

10. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present revision petition.

11. Re-iterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri. Manoj. H.S, learned counsel for petitioner, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and sought for allowing the revision petition.

12. He further pointed out that seizure of the weapon is too artificial in the case on hand in as such as PW.1 who has handed over the weapon to the investigation agency which throws sufficient doubt about the very case of prosecution itself.

13. He also pointed out that the injury that has been found in the Exs.P3 and P4 could have been caused otherwise than in an assault while the injured persons were carrying out agricultural operations and therefore, the Trial Judge ought not have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 326 of IPC and sought for allowing revision petition.

14. He also pointed out that the learned Judge in the first appellant failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and has mec