ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

State has preferred these appeals challenging the judgment and orders of acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and adequacy of sentence awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC passed in S.C.No.15032/2015 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both these appeals were accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.15032/2015 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of accused No.3.Pending these appeals, accused No.3 died and these appeals against accused No.3 stood abated.

4. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried in S.C.No.15032/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of charge-sheet filed by PW.7/PSI of Bagaluru Police Station in Crime No.113/2015 of their Police Station. Crime No.113/2015 was registered against the accused on the basis of complaint filed by PW.1 as per Ex.P1.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That PW.2 was constructing house by the side of the house of the accused. On 29.05.2015 at 06.00 p.m., the scaffold of the under construction house fell on the cement sheet ceiling of the house of the accused and caused damage. Being enraged by that, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with PWs.1 and 2, abusing them in foul language and intimidating them, accused No.1 assaulted PW.2 with MO.1-reaper on his head and hand and caused him grievous injuries. Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with MO.2-club and caused him bleeding injuries. Further, he assaulted PW.2 also with the same club and caused him bleeding injuries. Accused No.3 assaulted PWs.1 and 2 with MO.3-umbrella and caused them injuries. When PW.3 came to the rescue of PWs.1 and 2, accused No.1 kicked her with his legs and caused her simple injury. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 by pushing PW.2 to a drain, attempted to commit his murder.

6. Though the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, the trial Court on hearing both side framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. No charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section323 IPC.

7. As the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW9 were examined, Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 9 were marked. After their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused did not lead any defence evidence. However, Exs.D1 to D6 were marked by way of confrontation during cross examination of PW.2.

8. Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC and convicted them only for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 IPC. The trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 3 for the said offences with sentence of fine as follows:-

9. Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, Crl.A.No.612/2017 is filed. Questioning the adequacy of sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and504 IPC, Crl.A.No.611/2017 is filed.

10. Heard Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the appellant/State and Sri. S.V. Bhat, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2.

Submissions of Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned SPP-II.

11. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3/injured eyewitnesses, PWs.4 and 5/eye-witnesses and PWs.8 and 9/medical officers shows that accused had assaulted the victims with dangerous weapons with an intention to commit their murder. The evidence on record shows that