ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for revision petitioner and learned HCGP.

2. Presence of complainant-victim was secured through learned HCGP to find out whether the matter could be disposed off by amicable settlement taking note of the fact to substantiate offence u/s.325 IPC there is no proper material on record inasmuch as radiological report and the person who took the x-ray certificate is not examined before the court.

3. Accordingly the complainant injured (Mahadevanayaka-PW2) is present before the court. Present Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.129/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura. Upon the receipt of charge sheet filed by the Srirangapatna police for the offence punishable u/s.341, 448, 323, 325, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, learned Magistrate took cognizance.

4. Gist of the charge sheet materials would go to show that on 12.02.2017 at 8.00 p.m. in Kyathanahalli village, Janatha colony within the limits of Srirangapatna police station, the present revision petitioner and other accused persons in furtherance of common intention picked up a quarrel with the complainant and CW-2 with regard to payment of loan amount on installment basis to Dharmastala Self Help Group and trespassed into the house of CW-1 and abused CW-1 in filthy language and assaulted CW-2 with hands and pulled him forcibly and present revision petitioner pulled CW-1 out of his house and assaulted him resulting in fracture in the left leg of CW-1. Learned trial Magistrate after complying the necessary formalities framed the charge for aforesaid offences. The accused persons pleaded not guilty.

Therefore trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the injured complainant and other 9 witnesses were examined as PW 1 to 10 and 8 documentary evidences were placed on record on behalf of the prosecution comprising of complaint, mahazar, list of valuation, x-ray certificate, F.I.R, wound certificate.

6. Detailed cross examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the version of the injured eye witness.

7. Thereafter accused statement as is contemplated u/s.313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory materials found against him in the prosecution evidence and did not choose to offer any explanation in writing as is contemplated u/s.313(4) CrPC nor placed any defence evidence on record.

8. Learned trial Magistrate thereafter heard the parties in detail and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

9. The operative portion of the order of learned trial Magistrate reads as under:

“In exercise of powers conferred u/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are herby convicted for the offence punishable u/sec.325 r/w sec.34 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years each.

Further the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/sec.341 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

Further the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/sec.448 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.

Further the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/sec.323 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.

Further the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/sec.504 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.

In exercise of the powers conferred U/sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim i.e., Pw-1 Sri.Mahadevanayaka as discussed above, who is subjected to assault by the accused persons. In default of payment of compensation, the accused No.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months each.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

The bail bond and surety bond shall stand canceled.”

10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Srirangapatna in Crl.App