Revision petitioner-accused feeling aggrieved by the

judgment of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Uttara Kannada, Karwar (hereinafter referred as ‘First

Appellate Court’ for brevity) in Crl.A.No.85/2011 dated

20.09.2021, preferred this criminal revision petition.

2.

Parties to revision petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3.

The factual matrix leading to the case of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on

05.03.2008 at 4:00 p.m, at Mahime Kembal village in

Honnavar taluka, while the complainant was in the

courtyard of her parental house, accused picked up quarrel

with complainant on the pretext that cattle of her parents

went in the land of accused and abused in filthy language

with an intention to cause insult to the complainant.

Accused assaulted with sickle on the right hand palm

- 3 -

thereby, caused grievous injuries. When CW.4-mother of

complainant tried to pacify the quarrel, accused kicked on

the chest of CW.4 and gave life threat to both of them. On

these allegations made in the complaint, the investigating

officer after concluding investigation filed charge-sheet

against accused.

4.

Accused was secured before the trial Court and

stood trial for the offence punishable under Sections 323,

326, 504, 506 of IPC. Prosecution to prove the allegations

against accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and

the documents as per Exs.P1 to P7, so also got identified

MO.1. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C came to be recorded.

Accused has denied all incriminating material evidence

appearing against him. Accused has not led any defence

evidence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments and

on appreciation of evidence on record convicted the

accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence

as per order of sentence.

- 4 -

5.

The said judgment of conviction and order of

sentence was challenged by accused before First Appellate

Court under Crl.A.No.85/2011. The First Appellate Court

after hearing both sides dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence imposed by the trial Court.

6.

The revision petitioner-accused being aggrieved

by the judgment of First Appellate Court, preferred this

criminal revision petition and contended that both the

Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on

record in proper and perspective manner. The evidence of

PWs.1, 2 and 4 are totally unreliable to prove that PWs.1

and 2 have sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The

injuries found as per wound certificates-Exs.P.3 to 6 does

not correspond with oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4.

There are material discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1,

2 and 4 and there is no concrete evidence to prove that

complainant has sustained grievous injuries in the alleged

incident. Therefore, prayed for allowing revision petition

and to set-aside the judgment of First Appellate Court.

- 5 -

Consequently, acquit accused from the charges leveled

against him.

7.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.

The prosecution alleges that incident took place

on 05.03.2008 at 4:00 p.m, in front parental house of

complainant situated at Kambal Mahime village, Honnavar

taluka, on accused questioning cattle of complainant

entering his land. It is alleged that accused abused the

complainant in filthy language, so as to cause insult to her

and assaulted by means of sickle on her right hand palm

thereby, caused grievous injuries. When mother of

complainant-CW.4 came to rescue at that time, accused

kicked on the chest of CW.4, further gave life threat to

both of them. The material witnesses relied by the

prosecution to prove the charges leveled against accused

are

injured

complainant-PW.1,

PW.2-mother

of

complainant and PW.4-sister-in-law of CW.1. The said

evidence is sought to be corroborated by the medical

evidence in the form of wound certificates-Exs.P.3 to 6

- 6 -