This revision petition is filed assailing the judgment

of conviction passed by learned Prl. District & Sessions

Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.37/2013 dated 18.06.2013,

wherein the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga in

C.C.No.116/2011 dated 26.02.2013 is modified and the

accused is acquitted for the offences under sections 323,

504 and 506 IPC and he is convicted for the offence

punishable under section 325 IPC and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months

and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and the conviction of accused

for the offence punishable under section 341 IPC is

confirmed.

- 3 -

2. The petitioner was the accused before the trial

court. He will be referred as such as per the respective

ranks before the trial court.

3. The brief case of the prosecution is that the

accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the

complainant. When the complainant asked him to return

the money, the accused asked him to come near

Giriyapura village on 07.01.2011. Accordingly, at about

1.00 p.m. when the accused arrived at that place, the

complainant asked him to return the money. The accused

abused him and refused to give any money. The

complainant asked him to swear before the Anjinaya

Temple to the effect that he has not borrowed the money.

When they were going near the temple, the accused tried

to drag the complainant in his car and the public present

near that place came there. The accused assaulted the

complainant on his hand, leg and all over his body. Due to

assault on the mouth, the complainant lost his three

teethes of the upper jaw. The public pacified the quarrel

- 4 -

and the complainant was taken to hospital. Thereafter, the

complainant lodged a complaint and an FIR was registered.

The police investigated the matter and filed the charge

sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

under sections 504, 323, 341, 326, 506(2) IPC.

4. The trial court after recording the evidence and

hearing the arguments convicted the accused for all the

offences alleged against him. Aggrieved by the same, the

revision petitioner preferred an appeal, wherein the

appellate Court set-aside the order of conviction for the

offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and

also set-aside the conviction under section 326 IPC and

modified it to offence under section 325 IPC and also

imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-. The sentence of conviction

under section 341 IPC imposed on the petitioner was also

confirmed. Assailing the said judgment, this petition is

filed.

- 5 -

5. Heard Sri. Nithin Gowda K.C. for Sri. P. Prasanna

Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

HCGP Sri. K.S. Abhijeet for respondent State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in a

proper perspective. There is absolutely no evidence to

show that the petitioner has committed the offences

alleged against him.

7. Learned counsel argued that there is discrepancy

in the evidence of eye witnesses. Panch witnesses have

turned hostile. The seizure of teeth M.O-2 & 3 is not

proved. There is discrepancy as to how many teeth are

lost. The Doctor who has given evidence has stated that

he has given report based on the examination report of

dentist but the dentist is not examined before the court.

8. Learned counsel also argued that investigating

officer has not seen the teeth at the scene of offence.

PW-8 has stated that he has given teeth in a plastic cover

- 6 -

on the date of the offence itself. The seizure of blood stain

cloth panchanama is also not proved. PW-8 and 11 are

interested witnesses. There is a rivalry between them due

to which he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned counsel argued that there is no corroboration of

evidence, it is full of probabilities and inconsistency. The

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, argued to acq