JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Accused 2 is reported to be dead on 12-4-2012. Certificate issued by Mysore City Corporation is on record. Therefore, appeal against accused 2 has abated. Consequently, the appeal is heard only against respondent 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th July, 2011 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Court, Mangalore in S.C. No. 118 of 2008 is appealed against by the State. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted accused 1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 450 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused 1 and 2 entered the house of P.W. 2 when he was alone in his house; assaulted him with knife (M.O. 3), consequent upon which, P.W. 2 sustained grievous injuries; P.W. 3 raised hue and cry; after hearing such cries, P.W. 1 being wife of P.W. 2, who had gone to neighbouring house for attending the pooja, rushed to the scene of offence and saw both the accused committing crime. During the process, P.W. 2 also sustained certain simple injury. The incident has taken place at about 12.15 p.m. on 5-6-2008 in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The first information came to be lodged by P.W. 1 (wife of the injured victim) as per Ex. P. 1 at about 1.30 p.m. on 5-6-2008 while the victim was taking treatment in Yenepoya Hospital, Mangalore. Complaint was registered in Crime No. 99 of 2008 of Barke Police Station, Dakshina Kannada for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. P.W. 14-Inspector of Police laid the charge-sheet. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and got marked 13 exhibits and five material objects. On behalf of the defence, one exhibit came to be marked. As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted both the accused. 4. Learned Government Pleader Sri Chetan Desai taking us through the material on record, more particularly, evidence of P.Ws. On behalf of the defence, one exhibit came to be marked. As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted both the accused. 4. Learned Government Pleader Sri Chetan Desai taking us through the material on record, more particularly, evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the medical evidence on record submits that the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting accused 1-respondent herein; the evidence of these witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable; there is no reason as to why P.W. 2 should be disbelieved, inasmuch as, he is injured eye-witness and that P.W. 2 knew accused 1; the house of accused 1 is situated just about one furlong away from the house of P.W. 2; the wife of accused 1 works as a maidservant in a neighbouring house of accused 1; thus according to Public Prosecutor, the evidence on record, more particularly, evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly proves the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, if not, under Section 307 of IPC. Heard Sri Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae and Sri Nagesha Poojari, on behalf of Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Counsel, who had filed vakalath on behalf of respondent 1 and perused the records. 5. P.W. 1 is the complainant and also the injured. She is the wife of the injured P.W. 2. P.W. 2 is the husband of P.W. 1. He has sustained the grievous injuries. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 3 is the son of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He came to the spot after hearing about the incident. He shifted the injured to the hospital. P.W. 4 is the witness for the spot mahazar (Ex. P. 4). P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the mahazar witnesses to Exs. P. 5 to P. 7. However, they have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 7 is the doctor. He treated P.W. 2 and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P. 8. He has also treated P.W. 1 and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P. 9. He has deposed that metacarpal bone of P.W. 2 was fractured. P.W. 8 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 3) under which the clothes of the injured (M.Os. 1 and 2) were seized. P.W. 9 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 2). P. 9. He has deposed that metacarpal bone of P.W. 2 was fractured. P.W. 8 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 3) under which the clothes of the injured (M.Os. 1 and 2) were seized. P.W. 9 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 2). He has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Under Ex. P. 2, the knife and the shirt of the accused (M.Os. 3 and 4) were seized. P.W. 10 is the PSI who participated during the course of the investigation. P.W. 11 is the witness for the seizure mahazar (Ex. P. 2) under which the knife and the shirt of the accused were seized. He has supported the case of prosecution. P.W. 12 is also the witness for the very panchanama. He has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 13 is the Sub-Inspector who received the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 and registered the crime. He has conducted part of investigation. P.W. 14 is another Inspector who completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. 6. Case of the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence. As aforementioned, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are injured. They were treated immediately by the doctor, who has issued the wound certificates (Exs. P. 8 and P. 9). The complaint lodged by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P. 1 discloses the manner in which the incident has taken place. In the morning of 5-6-2008, P.W. 1 went to neighbour's house for participating in pooja function. In the afternoon, she heard hue and cry raised by her husband (P.W. 2) and immediately, she rushed to the house and saw that accused 1 stabbing her husband (P.W. 2). Another accused, who was present at the spot, has also participated in the crime. Consequent of such assault by accused 1 and 2, P.W. 2 sustained the injuries on the chest and the other parts of the body. P.W. 1 did not recognise accused 2. However, she recognised accused 1. Even at the time of lodging the complaint, she identified accused 1 inasmuch as she was knowing him. In the complaint (Ex. P. 1), the complainant has not specified any motive. However, she has deposed that the accused searched inside the house. The contents of Ex. P. 1 are fully supported by P.Ws. 1 and 2. Even at the time of lodging the complaint, she identified accused 1 inasmuch as she was knowing him. In the complaint (Ex. P. 1), the complainant has not specified any motive. However, she has deposed that the accused searched inside the house. The contents of Ex. P. 1 are fully supported by P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1 has reiterated before the Court about the incident in question. However, in the evidence, she has introduced the theory that accused had come to rob their house. She called the police over phone. Consequently, the police came inside the house. But, by that time, the accused fled away from the scene. Though P.W. 1 was subjected to cross-examination at length, nothing worth elicited in the defence insofar as the incident is concerned. The defence Counsel has accordingly concentrated on the antecedents of P.W. 1 which shows that P.W. 1 was well off and a social worker. 7. The evidence of P.W. 1 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 2, who has deposed about the complicity of accused 1 in detail. P.W. 2 was the person who is mainly affected in the crime. He has sustained the fracture of metacarpal bone. There is no reason as to why he should file a false case. Generally, no injured would file a false case against an innocent person leaving behind the person who has actually committed the crime. In the cross-examination, the defence has elicited that the house of accused 1 is just a furlong away from the house of P.W. 2 and that the wife of accused 1 is working as the maidservant in a house which situates near the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 2 has also deposed that the accused searched for the gold ornaments and the money. 8. From the evidence, it is clear that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were financially well-off; P.W. 1 was in the habit of wearing lot of gold ornaments, whenever she goes out of the house; even suggestions are made to the effect that P.W. 1 was warned by the people not to wore the gold ornaments, whenever she goes out. Which means that the defence admits that everybody in the locality knew that P.W. 1 had got the number of gold ornaments. Which means that the defence admits that everybody in the locality knew that P.W. 1 had got the number of gold ornaments. Though no motive is alleged in the complaint, the case of prosecution that the accused wanted to rob the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 finds support from the suggestions made by the defence to the eye-witnesses. Nevertheless, the complaint also discloses that the accused searched inside the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 2 has reiterated as to the complicity of accused 1 and 2. He has fairly deposed that he was not knowing accused 2 at all, but he was knowing accused 1. 9. We find that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is consistent, cogent and reliable. We do not find any reason to disbelieve their version, more particularly, when they are the injured eye-witnesses and their presence was on the spot i.e., within the house is natural. 10. Case of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 7) and the wound certificates (Exs. P. 8 and P. 9). The medical evidence discloses that P.W. 1 has suffered the simple injury on her hand, where as P.W. 2 has sustained one grievous injury apart from the simple injuries. P.W. 2 has suffered the fracture of metacarpal bone. Nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve the version of the doctor (P.W. 7) who treated P.Ws. 1 and 2. 11. We have gone through the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has merely narrated the versions of each of the witnesses and has abruptly come to the conclusion. No reasons much less valid reasons are forthcoming as to why the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence. We are of the opinion that the Trial Court has proceeded causally while passing the order. We are of the clear opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court acquitting the accused is not the possible view under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused needs to be set aside inasmuch as the accused should have been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. 12. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused needs to be set aside inasmuch as the accused should have been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. 12. Accordingly, the following order is made: (a) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 16-7-2011 passed in S.C. No. 118 of 2008 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, stands set aside. (b) Accused 1-respondent 1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. (c) In default of payment of fine as imposed supra, accused 1-respondent 1 shall undergo further imprisonment of six months. (d) If the fine amount is recovered, the amount of Rs. 45,000/- shall be paid to the injured P.W. 2 (Ananda Kamath) as compensation under Section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall vest with the State. (e) Accused 1-respondent 1 is entitled to the benefit of set off as provided under Section 428 of Cr. P.C. (f) The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae. The registry is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to learned Amicus Curiae, as honourarium.