Judgment N. Ananda, J. 1. The appellants (accused Nos. 1 to 4) were tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, they are before this Court. I have heard Sri M.R. Balakrishna, learned counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for State. 2. The accused were tried for the following charges: On 23.1.2005 at 9.00 p.m., PW1 -Harish was moving on a public road near arrack shop at Karikkala of Panjitadi Village, accused 1 to 4 shared common intention and wrongfully restrained him. In the course of same transaction, accused abused PW1 by using vulgar language in order to provoke him and disturb him, which was likely to cause tranquility. In the course of same transaction, accused No. 1 assaulted PW1 with a stone and accused No. 2 slapped PW1 on his cheek. Accused 3 and 4 dragged PW1 on the road. The accused while leaving that place threatened life of PW1. 3. The proof of entire case of prosecution rests upon evidence of PW1 - Harish and PW2 - Prashanth and medical evidence of PW8 - Dr. Karunakar K.V. 4. PW1 has deposed that on the date of incident, after completing work, he was returning to village, when he came near arrack shop of one Baby Hengsu, accused 1 to 4 wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him. PW1 was moving on a public road. It is not as if that accused 1 to 4 had used criminal force and prevented him from moving further. PW1 has not deposed that he was not able to move because accused 1 to 4 were standing in front of him. The evidence of PW1 that he was wrongfully restrained by accused 1 to 4 does not find corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. This was necessary in view of the fact that accused 1 to 4 and PW1 had quarreled. PW1 had grievance against accused 1 to 4 that they were teasing one Savitha who was running an arrack shop near the place of incident. 5. PW1 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused No. 1 with a stone. From the medical evidence of PW8 - Dr. Karunakar, we find that PW1 had suffered following injuries: (i) lacerated wound over right cheek 1 x 0.5 cm. (ii) contusion on cheek 2 x 1 x 1 cm. 5. PW1 has deposed that he was assaulted by accused No. 1 with a stone. From the medical evidence of PW8 - Dr. Karunakar, we find that PW1 had suffered following injuries: (i) lacerated wound over right cheek 1 x 0.5 cm. (ii) contusion on cheek 2 x 1 x 1 cm. (iii) abrasion over left side of chest 2 x 1 cm. (iv) abrasion over back 2 x 1 cm. PW1 has deposed that these injuries were caused due to assault by accused 1 and 2. There are no reasons to suspect the evidence of PW1. 6. PW2 has given evidence as if he had witnessed the incident. However, on careful consideration of evidence of PW2, it is clear that PW2 had reached place of incident, after incident of assault. 7. PW1 has deposed that accused 3 and 4 had dragged him on the road. However, we do not find any corresponding injuries on the back of PW1. PW1 has deposed that accused 1 to 4 while running away from place of incident, had held out threats to his life. The evidence of PW1 that accused while running away from place of incident, had held out threats to life of PW1, looks improbable. The accused were fleeing away from place of incident, they would not have stopped for a while to threaten the life of PW1. The evidence of PW1 does not find corroboration from, evidence of independent witnesses. Thus on re-appreciation of evidence, it is clear that prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 had assaulted PW-1 with a stone, accused No. 2 had slapped on the cheek of PW1. The prosecution has not proved that stone used by accused to assault PW1, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. Therefore, I hold that prosecution has proved that accused 1 and 2 had committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The conviction of accused 3 and 4 for the afore said offences cannot be sustained. So also conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324and 506 cannot be sustained. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is modified. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, read with Section 34, is set aside. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324and 506 cannot be sustained. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is modified. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, read with Section 34, is set aside. The conviction of accused 1. and 2 for offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 324 read with Section34 IPC is set aside. Accused 1 and 2 are convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo imprisonment for three months for an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid as compensation to PW1 - Harish Gowda. Appeal Allowed.