JUDGMENT

Appellant/complainant feeling aggrieved by judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of II Addl.SessionsJudgeChikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.398/2013 dated 24.01.2015 in reversing the judgment of Trial Court on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, C.C.No.569/2012, dated 28.10.2013 preferred this appeal preferred this appeal.

2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard the arguments of both sides.

4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of Trial Court records, so also the impugned judgment under appeal, the following points arise for consideration:

1) Whether the judgment of First Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section

326 r/w Section 34 of IPC is perverse, capricious and legally not sustainable?

2) Whether interference of this Court is required?

5. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it would go to show that on 04.04.2012 at 9.30 p.m. complainant Hemanna was proceeding towards Yellamma temple to sleep there. When he reached near the house of Rangaiah, both the accused all of a sudden assaulted on his back and right thigh with the club and chopper over his left hand. Accused have abused the complainant in filthy language with an intention to cause insult to him, further administered threat to take away the life of complainant. On the basis of these allegations made in the complaint case was registered against both accused in Sakrepatna police crime No.33/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

6. In response to summons accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their counsel. The Trial Court on being prima facie satisfied of the charge sheet materials framed the charges against accused for the offences alleged against them. Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Prosecution to prove the charges levelled against accused relied on the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 12 and the documents at Exs.P.1 to 9, so also got identified MOs.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. The Trial Court after having heard the arguments of both sides acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court has convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC and imposed sentence as per the order of sentence.

8. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged said judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 of IPC before the First Appellate Court on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.398/2013. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on record by judgment dated 24.01.2015 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction of both the accused and acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section

326 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that the First Appellate Court has committed serious error in discarding the evidence of injured witness PW.1 Hemanna and PW.11 Dr.Somashekar who has treated the injured PW.1 Hemanna and issued wound certificate Ex.P.6. The First Appellate Court has also committed serious error in discarding the evidence of PW.5 Umesh, PW.6 Siddamma, son and wife of complainant respectively. The mere fact that PWs.2 to 4 who are independent eye witnesses to the incident in question have not supported the case of prosecution cannot be a ground to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC by ignoring the evidence injured witness PW.1 He