The present petitioner was tried as accused by the

Court of learned Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), & J.M.F.C.,

Madikeri, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `trial

Court') in C.C.No.357/2007, for the offence punishable

under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

for brevity referred to as the `IPC') and was convicted by

its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

17.10.2007 and was sentenced accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an

appeal in Criminal Appeal No.89/2007, before the Fast

Track Court, Kodagu at Madikeri, (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as the `Sessions Judge9s Court'), which after

hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused

by its judgment dated 27.08.2012. Being aggrieved by the

same, the accused has preferred the present revision

petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the

trial Court was that on the date 23.11.2006, at about

3

7.30 a.m., near paddy field of PW-3 K.A.Uthappa in

Makkandur village within the limits of complainant-Police

Station, when PW-2 - Lingappa objected to the accused for

the accused letting his cattles for grazing in the field of

PW-3 Uthappa, who was the master of the complainant, the

accused voluntarily assaulted the complainant (PW-2) with

a club and caused him grievous injuries and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.

3. The accused appeared in the trial Court and

contested the matter through his counsel. The accused

pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt

against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all

five witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked

documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5 and one material object was

produced at MO-1. However, neither any witness was

examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf of

the accused.

4

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State

are physically present in the Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court, including the trial Court

and Sessions Judge9s Court9s records.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial

Court.

7. After hearing the learned counsel from both side,

the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision

petition is:

Whether the concurrent finding recorded by the

trial Court, as well as the Sessions Judge9s Court that

the

accused

committed

the

alleged

offences

punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, warrants any interference at the hands

of this Court?

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

argument submits that the X-ray report has not been

5

produced by the prosecution. Though the complainant was

passed in front of Police Station before going to the

hospital, still, he did not lodge the complaint before going to

the hospital. He also stated that MO-1 was not smeared

with mud though the field was said to be with some mud.

With this, he submitted that the case of the prosecution

creates a doubt and prays to allow the revision petition.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State submits that since both the trial Court and

Sessions Judge's Court have appreciated the evidence in

proper perspective and rightly held the accused guilty of the

alleged offences, no interference is warranted through this

revision petition.

10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the

accused, the prosecution got examined five witnesses from

PW-1 to PW-5. Among whom, PW-2 Lingappa is the

complainant and the alleged victim in the incident. In his

evidence he has stated that he has been working under

PW-3 K.A.Uthappa and attends to his agricultural work and

6

grazing of the cattles since past four years prior to the

incident. On the date 23.11.2006, in the morning at about

7.30 a.m., when he had been to the land of his mas