JUDGMENT Manjula chellur, J.—This appeal is filed by the convicted-accused who faced trial for the charges punishable Under Section 452, 324, 326 and 307 Indian Penal Code and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 326 and was acquitted for the offence punishable under of Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is one Smt. Indumathi, D/o. Laxminarayana PW-2 and the present Appellant were the classmates while pursuing Masters degree in Sanskrit at Katil Colege. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses further point out that Appellant was very much interested in getting married to Indumathi. In this regard, some disputes and misunderstandings seems to have erupted between the Appellant and the complainant's party. A criminal case also was registered on earlier occasion in CC No. 565/1999 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code against this Appellant alleging that he went to the school of Smt. Indumathi, dragged her out of the school holding her hand and injured her after threating her with dire consequences, if the refuses to marry him. In the said case, he was also convicted to undergo Simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. 3. When the things stood as said above, on 9.4.2001 according to the prosecution, this accused-Appellant went to the house of Lakshminarayana Bhat, PW-2 father of Smt. Indumathi with a sickle and panchanga to ask the hand of Indumathi in marriage. When PW-2 refused to oblige the Appellant on the ground that Indumathi was already married to someone else, some quarrel seems to have taken place between the parties and in the said quarrel, boh PW-1 and PW-2 got injured and even the accused was injured. However, a case came to be registered on the file of Respondent -police against the Appellant. The prosecution evidence further reveals both the accused and the injured were taken to hospitals for treatment. Both PW-2 and the Appellant sustained grievous injuries. 4. So far as the actual incident is concerned, we have the evidence of P Ws. 1 to 3, the inmates of the house of Lakshminarayana Bhat. PW-5 is the neighbour who goes to the spot after the incident and saw the accused at the spot. PW-6 is the auto driver who took the accused-Appellant in his Auto to the house of PW-2. 1 to 3, the inmates of the house of Lakshminarayana Bhat. PW-5 is the neighbour who goes to the spot after the incident and saw the accused at the spot. PW-6 is the auto driver who took the accused-Appellant in his Auto to the house of PW-2. PW-5 and 12 are the Doctors who treated the accused. PW-7 is the relative of the complainant who speaks about his knowledge regarding the incident and his visit to the hospital. PW-8 is the Doctor who treated PW-2. PW-9 is the husband of PW-1 and S/o. PW-2. PW-10 is the carrier of First Information Report, PW-11 is the police who carried sealed articles to FSL, Bangalore, PW-13 is the Doctor who treated PW-1, PW-14 And 16 are the official witnesses from FSL. PW-15 is one who registered the case against the accused and sent First Information Report. PW-7 is the Doctor who collected blood of the accused for grouping. PW-18 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 5. According to the prosecution, the whole incident is on account of the refusal of PW-2 giving his daughter in marriage to the Appellant and in that incident, the accused assaulted PW-1 and PW-2 and according to the accused PW-2 and PW-9 assaulted him. The specific case of the prosecution is that without any invitation on behest of PW-2, accused barged into the house of PW-2 and created ugly scene wherein he assaulted PW-1 and 2 with sickle. According to the accused, at the invitation of PW-7 to discuss his marriage with the daughter of PW-2 where PW-2 and 9 assaulted him. 6. The Trial Court did not agree with the case of the prosecution in so far as Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, and other three charges were held to be established. However, the prosecution has not challenged the acquittal of the Appellant for an offence under Section 307 India Penal Code. When the substantive sentence is abandoned, for an offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, wherein the Appellant is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/-. The other sentences are lesser in nature and all the sentences run concurrently. When the substantive sentence is abandoned, for an offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, wherein the Appellant is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/-. The other sentences are lesser in nature and all the sentences run concurrently. The evidence of PW-5, and PW-6, the neighbour and the relative of the injured and the Doctors PW8 and 13 who treated PW-2 and PW-1 respectively along with the wound certificates Ex. P-5 and P-12 would reveal PW-1 sustained simple injuries and PW-2 Lakshminarayana Bhat sutstained several injuries including the injury on the skull, chest, however one of the injury is described as grievous in nature. In so far as the sustenance of injuries, these witnesses speak about the injuries, presence of the accused and the alleged treatment given to PW-1 and PW-2 by the concerned doctors. The question would be who was the cause for these injuries found on P Ws. 1 and 2. It is also noticed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that accused has also sustained several injuries including one grievous injury. However, no counter case came to be registered at the instance of te Appellant against any one. The defence theory was as there was a oral quarrel between the parties when the accused came to their house, which ultimately led to physical quarrel and in the said quarrel, PW-2 must have sustained those injuries. The other defence theory is injuries on accused by PW-2 and PW-9 are also denied. The evidence of the Doctor and also the discussion made by the Trial Court with regard to the description of the injuries sustained by PW-2 accidentally with sickle is ruled out. Some external force has caused these injuries on PW-2 which are described in Ex. P-8. As a matter of fact, Ex. P-2 points out six injuries found on the accused, the Doctor who treated him is PW-11. According to him, the appellant refused to take treatment in the said hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government hospital i.e., Venloc Hospital, Mangalore for further treatment. The grievlous injury was incised wound on the left ulna olecranon exposed on left elbow posterior aspect measuring 6 1/2 x 4 1/2 cms. This was the injury operated at Venlo hospital, Mangalore. According to him, the appellant refused to take treatment in the said hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government hospital i.e., Venloc Hospital, Mangalore for further treatment. The grievlous injury was incised wound on the left ulna olecranon exposed on left elbow posterior aspect measuring 6 1/2 x 4 1/2 cms. This was the injury operated at Venlo hospital, Mangalore. Unfortunately, the case sheet though finds a place in the lower Court records were not brought on record for the Trial Courts persual. PW-1 Vrinda sustained two simple injuries i.e., on the left thumb and right forearm. In all probability such injuries could be caused due to an accidental fall or some one tries to intervene in the physical fight between third parties. PW-2 has sustained injuries as per Ex. P-5 i.e., incized wound over the right side of the skull and incised wound over the left side of the chest, and incised wound over the right forearm. X-Ray of the chest reveal Haemo Pheno thorax. The Doctor who treated PW-2 is PW-8. He also treated PW-1, but PW-13 also treated PW-1. The evidence brought on record do not give scope for doubting the accused at the spot at the relevant point of time. Whether it was on the behest of the complainants party, he came there or on his own voluntarily came to the house of PW-2 cannot be definitely ascertained but the fact remains both the parties attack each other i.e., complainant's party and the Appellant. PW-2 and also Appellant sustained serious injuries. It is quite possible that when the Appellant voluntarily entered the house of PW-2, PW-2 and his family members could have attacked him and in retardation he must have also acted violently but however, we do not get any material out of the cross-examination made by the defence in this regard. On the other hand it is also glaring from the records, that prosecution failed to explain the injuries found on the accused and who attacked first and to whom, is not forthcoming clearly. The fact remains accused went to the house of PW-2 and this incident has resulted in. It was not at the instance of the complainant- PW-2 or any of his family members. Because on the earlier occasion also, Appellant seems to have caused some trouble and injuries to Indumathi D/o. PW-2. The fact remains accused went to the house of PW-2 and this incident has resulted in. It was not at the instance of the complainant- PW-2 or any of his family members. Because on the earlier occasion also, Appellant seems to have caused some trouble and injuries to Indumathi D/o. PW-2. When that being the situation it would be difficult to accept to the defence that PW-2 had invited the Appellant to negotiate the marriage of the Appellant with Indumathi. Just because, the Appellant went to the house of PW-2, it cannot be said that PW-2 had the right to attack the Appellant physically. The material collected by the prosecution as already stated, do not reflect who invited the trouble. As there is ample evidence to show the Appellant was holding sickle when he visited the house of PW-2, one must presume that he had gone to the house of PW-2 with all preparations to face any eventuality. It is also established that he used the same sickle for attacking PW-2 and PW-1. We cannot forget the presence of injuries on the Appellant caused at the house of PW-2. In that view of the matter and also the fact that the prosecution did not challenge the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, the Court has to confirm the conviction of the Appellant, for all the three charges i.e. Section 452, 324 and 326 Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentence was in respect of Section 326 Indian Penal Code. 7. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the Appellant also, this Court is of the opinion that the period of sentence awarded by the Trial Court i.e., 4 years deserves to be reduced. 8. So far as imposition of fine and the quantum of sentence of imprisonment in respect of two other offences, the order of the Trial Court is confirmed. 9. So far as Section 326 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the quantum of fine remains as awarded by the Trial Court and only the period of sentence of 4 years is reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant in custody. 10. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part.