JUDGMENT : The Judgment & Order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya in Sessions Case No.105/2011 is called in question in these two appeals. The four accused were tried before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court acquitted Accused No.4 – Kantharaju s/o late Rachaiah of all the offences with which he was charged and acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307, 114 r/w 34 of IPC. However Accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section-34 of IPC and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each with a default clause. 2. Criminal Appeal No.796/2012 is filed by convicted Accused Nos.1 to 3 questioning the Judgment & Order of conviction convicting them for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Consequently, they have sought for total acquittal. Whereas Criminal Appeal No.1262/2012 is filed by the State questioning the Judgment and Order of acquittal of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 and 114 r/w 34 of IPC. Consequently, State has prayed for conviction of all the accused for the offences with which they were charged. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that house of the complainant and the house of the accused were abutting each other; all was not well between the two families and they were quarrelling inter se on various issues including the issue of user of pathway; they were not in talking terms; PW.3 is mother of PW.2 (complainant); PW.4 is the younger sister of PW.2; PW.5 is younger brother of PW.2; all these witnesses were residing under the same roof; Accused No.1 is husband of Accused No.2 and father of Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 is a friend of Accused No.1. At about 3.30 p.m. on 14.10.2010, Accused No.2 and her sister (not an accused) scolded PWs.3 to 5 and was telling them that they would be done to death on that day and that she had invited many other people to do the said job; Since PW.2 felt danger for her life and the lives of other family members, she was proceeding to Police Station alongwith family members and at that point of time Accused Nos.3 and 4 came on the scooter and waylaid PW.2 and her sister; Accused Nos.1 to 3 started assaulting PWs.3,4 and 5; Accused No.4 instigated Accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the said crime; in the meanwhile, PW.2 and one Billaiah (CW.5) started raising hue and cry and consequently the people at large came to the spot and pacified the quarrel. Based on these allegations, the complaint came to be lodged at 8.00 p.m. on 14.10.2010 which came to be registered in Crime No. 164/2010 of Malavalli Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 504, 307, 114 r/w 34 of IPC. PW.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the complaint and sent the First Information Report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses and got marked 8 Exhibits and 7 Material Objects. 5. As mentioned supra, trial Court acquitted Accused No.4 of all the offences with which he is charged; convicted Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitted them of the other offences with which they were charged. 6. Sri H.B. Chandrashekhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused not only argued supporting the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, but also argued for setting aside the Judgment of the trial Court under which Accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. 6. Sri H.B. Chandrashekhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused not only argued supporting the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, but also argued for setting aside the Judgment of the trial Court under which Accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. He submits that though the incident has taken place at about 3.30 p.m. and though the Police Station is situated near the place of incident in Malavalli, the complaint came to be lodged by PW.2 only at 8.00 p.m. i.e., after the lapse of 4 ½ hours of the incident; If really PW.2 is the eye witness to the incident in question, she should not have missed to lodge the complaint within a reasonable period after the incident; though the injured were admitted to hospital at 4.30 p.m., there is lot of delay in sending the Medico Legal Case Intimation to the Police Station by the doctor; The evidence of PW.2 clearly reveals that she herself handed over the weapons to the Police and executed panchanama - Ex.P3 and hence according to the learned advocate, the so called recovery sought to be made out by the prosecution falls to the ground. He further draws the attention of the Court to variations in the evidence of the injured eye witnesses as well in the evidence of PW.2; that all the witnesses have tried to exaggerate the case by deposing falsely against the accused; The evidence of PWs.2 to 5 suffers from embellishments, material improvements and omissions. According to him, the evidence of the eye witnesses is not consistent and cogent; the place of incident itself is wrongly shown; the origin and genesis of case of the prosecution is suppressed by the Investigating Officer. On these among other grounds, he prays for allowing Criminal Appeal No. 796/2012. According to him, the evidence of the eye witnesses is not consistent and cogent; the place of incident itself is wrongly shown; the origin and genesis of case of the prosecution is suppressed by the Investigating Officer. On these among other grounds, he prays for allowing Criminal Appeal No. 796/2012. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the case falls under Section 307 of IPC inasmuch as the injuries sustained by the victim are on the vital portions of the body though are simple in nature; It is not necessary that the victim should sustain the grievous injuries in order to bring home guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC; Since the intention of Accused Nos.1 to 3 is clear and as they had pronounced that the victim should be done to death, the trial Court ought to have convicted them for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 7. Before proceeding further, we would like to narrate the evidence in brief in respect of each of the witnesses. PW.1 is the eye witness to the incident. However he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he did not give any favourable answers to the prosecution so also his evidence is of no use to the defence also. PW.2 is the eye witness to the incident. She has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P2, based on which crime came to be registered. She is the daughter of the injured PW.3 and sister of injured PWs.4 and 5. PWs.3, 4 and 5 are the injured eye witnesses. All of them have supported the case of the prosecution. PW.6 is the doctor. He treated all the three injured - PWs.3,4 and 5 and issued the wound certificates as per Ex.P4,5 and 6. He subjected the injured to radiological examination and has finally opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. PW.7 is the witness for mahazar Ex.P3. She has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He received the complaint and registered the crime. He conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 8. From the aforementioned narration, it is amply clear that the case mainly rests on the ocular testimony of PWs.2 to 5 and among them, PWs.3 to 5 are the injured witnesses. PW.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He received the complaint and registered the crime. He conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 8. From the aforementioned narration, it is amply clear that the case mainly rests on the ocular testimony of PWs.2 to 5 and among them, PWs.3 to 5 are the injured witnesses. Though it is contended by Sri Chandrashekar, learned advocate for the accused that PWs.2 to 5 are interested witnesses and their evidence will have to be weighed cautiously, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the said submission. It is no doubt true that the evidence of any witness including injured witnesses has to be scrutinized carefully. However PWs.3,4 and 5 cannot be treated as interested witnesses, more particularly when they are the injured eye witnesses. 9. The incident has taken place at 3.30 p.m. in the broad day light in Malavalli town. Malavalli is a taluka place. It is but natural that number of persons would be there in and around the scene of offence. Moreover, the incident has taken place about 300 feet away from Kanakapura Main Road and 100 feet away from the house of PWs.2 to 5. So also it is clear from the material on record that the incident has taken place on public place i.e., the pathway. Immediately after the incident, the injured were admitted to Government Hospital, Malavalli at about 4.05 p.m. At the time of admission of PWs.3, the history was recorded by the concerned doctor to the effect that the injuries are said to have been caused due to assault by Revathi (Accused No.2) with knife and assault by Ashwini (Accused No.3), Kantharaju (Accused No.4) and one Nandini by reaper at about 3.30 p.m. near Somanna Hotel situated on Kanakapura Main Road. While admitting Rajammanni (PW.4) in the hospital at 4.20 p.m., the doctor has recorded the history that he was assaulted by Mahadevaswamy (Accused No.1) with knife on her back, neck and shoulder near her house at 3.30 p.m on 14.10.2010. Similarly, the history was recorded while admitting PW.5 in the hospital. From the above, it is amply clear that the injured were admitted to hospital in between 4.05 p.m. and 4.20 p.m. i.e., within one hour of the incident in question. Similarly, the history was recorded while admitting PW.5 in the hospital. From the above, it is amply clear that the injured were admitted to hospital in between 4.05 p.m. and 4.20 p.m. i.e., within one hour of the incident in question. The doctor who was attending PWs.3,4 and 5 in the hospital, has recorded the history as mentioned supra, which contains the names of all the accused. Most important is that each of the injured witnesses has given the history naming the assailant who had assaulted him in the incident. Thus it is clear that the history given by the injured witnesses is not omnibus, but the same was specific. Even the place of incident, the weapons used by the accused, time of the incident as well as the name of the assailants were recorded in the history by the doctor. Consequently, it is clear that within one hour, all the injured witnesses have disclosed about the incident before the public authority i.e., Doctor attached to the Government hospital. In view of the same, it cannot be made much of by the accused that the complaint came to be lodged belatedly at 8 p.m. Moreover the patients are required to take treatment at the earliest. It is not expected of them to approach the Police Station with bleeding injuries ignoring their health. It is natural that the injured would be immediately shifted to hospital for saving their lives instead of approaching the police station to lodge the complaint. Same has been done in this case also. Thus in our considered opinion, virtually there is no delay in lodging the complaint and the delay, if any is explained under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. We have gone through the depositions of PWs.2,3,4 and 5 meticulously. All these witnesses have deposed naming the assailants who assaulted them. These witnesses have also deposed about the weapons used for commission of the offence by the accused. The versions of PWs.2 to 5 fully corroborates the version as found in the complaint – Ex.P2 lodged by PW.2. 11. It is specifically deposed by all the injured eye witnesses that Accused No.2 – Revathi assaulted with knife; Accused No.1 also assaulted with the knife, whereas other accused have assaulted them with clubs. The aforementioned facts are consistently deposed by the injured eye witnesses as well as PW.2. 11. It is specifically deposed by all the injured eye witnesses that Accused No.2 – Revathi assaulted with knife; Accused No.1 also assaulted with the knife, whereas other accused have assaulted them with clubs. The aforementioned facts are consistently deposed by the injured eye witnesses as well as PW.2. As mentioned supra, PWs.3,4 and 5 are the injured eye witnesses. PW.3 has deposed that on account of fear, when herself and her husband proceeded towards Police Station to lodge the complaint against the accused, Accused Nos.3 and 4 waylaid PW.3 and her husband; Accused No.4 told them that they need not go to Police Station and that the disputes can be resolved outside the Police Station; so saying, he held the hand of PW.3; in the meanwhile, Accused No.3 assaulted PW.4 with hands and legs and thereafter she was assaulted with the help of club; Meanwhile, PW.5 intervened and he was also assaulted; immediately Accused No.1 came with a knife in his hand and stabbed on her (PW.3); Accused No.2 assaulted on her back and neck with a knife; Accused Nos.2 and 3 once again assaulted on the backside of the neck of PW.4; meanwhile, public came and intervened and pacified the quarrel. Though PW.3 was subjected to lengthy crossexamination, nothing worth is elicited by the defence to raise suspicion in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the evidence of PW.3. The evidence of PW.3 is fully corroborated by the evidence of other two injured eye witnesses – PWs.4 and 5 as well as the eye witness – PW.2. The evidence of these witnesses is also almost similar to the evidence of PW.3. All of them have deposed about the complicity of Accused Nos.1,2 and 3. The overt acts of these accused are in detail and specifically deposed by the injured witnesses including the eye witnesses. 12. The trial Court, in detail, has gone into the depositions of each of the witnesses and has rightly concluded that the versions of these witnesses is consistent and cogent. On going through the Judgment as well as the depositions of these witnesses, we fully agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court that the versions of these witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. There is no reason as to why the injured witnesses should implicate innocent persons by leaving the real assailants. 13. On going through the Judgment as well as the depositions of these witnesses, we fully agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court that the versions of these witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. There is no reason as to why the injured witnesses should implicate innocent persons by leaving the real assailants. 13. The prosecution has proved the circumstance of motive also. Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that litigations are going on between the accused as well as PWs.2 to 5 with regard to the pathway and other issues. With the said motive, the incident has taken place. Even on reconsideration of the entire material on record, we find that the evidence of the injured witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. The evidence of PW.2 fully supports the versions of the injured. 14. The case of the prosecution is further fortified by the Forensic Science Laboratory report – Ex.P8. Ex.P8 discloses that seven articles were sent for FSL examination, which include one wooden club, two knives and clothes of the injured. The FSL report discloses that all the seven items sent for examination contain human blood. 15. Since we find that the ocular testimony of PWs.2 to 5 is believable and trustworthy and their evidence is fully supported by the medical evidence of the doctor – PW.6 and the wound certificates – Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, the trial Court is justified in convicting Accused Nos.1 to 3. However the evidence on record does not disclose ample and reliable material as against Accused No.4. It is vaguely stated in the complaint – Ex.P2 that alongwith him (PW.2), Accused No.2 came on the scooter to the scene of offence and at that point of time, Accused NO.4 tried to tell PW.2 that he would solve the disputes between the two groups. Same is the version of the eye witness. Hence it is clear that Accused NO.4 has not taken any active role in commission of the crime. On the other hand, he has tried to pacify the quarrel between the two groups by amicable settlement. Therefore in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in acquitting Accused No.4, more particularly when the material on record collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home guilt against him. 16. On the other hand, he has tried to pacify the quarrel between the two groups by amicable settlement. Therefore in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in acquitting Accused No.4, more particularly when the material on record collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home guilt against him. 16. The evidence of the doctor – PW.6 and the wound certificates – Ex.P4 to P6 reveal that all the three injured have sustained simple injuries. Among them, PW.3 has sustained severe injury though technically it is not a grievous injury. She was admitted to Vikram hospital at Mysore and she was in-patient for four days. However the doctor having found that PW.3 has not sustained any fracture or any grievous injury, has issued the certificate as per Ex.P4 that she has sustained simple injury. So also PWs.4 and 5 have sustained simple injuries. The evidence of PWs.2 to 5 is not sufficient to conclude that the accused has got intention to commit murder of any of the injured. Admittedly, PWs.3 to 5 were unarmed. Even according to the prosecution, the accused were armed with knife and club. Had there been any intention on the part of the accused to do away with the life of any of the injured, they would not have left them, more particularly when the injured witnesses are in helpless condition and were unarmed. The very fact that the injured were left with the simple injuries by the accused, more particularly when the injured unarmed, would clearly reveal that they did not have any intention to commit murder of any of the injured. It seems accused wanted to curtail PW.2 from going to the Police Station to lodge the complaint and in that regard, the incident has taken place. In view of the same, we are of the clear conclusion that the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 17. Though the trial Court is justified in not imposing sentence of imprisonment under the facts and circumstances of the case, it ought to have imposed higher amount of fine as part of sentence. As mentioned supra, PW.3 has sustained serious type of injury and she was admitted to Vikram hospital, which is a major hospital at Mysore and she has taken treatment as in-patient for four days. As mentioned supra, PW.3 has sustained serious type of injury and she was admitted to Vikram hospital, which is a major hospital at Mysore and she has taken treatment as in-patient for four days. She must have spent lot of money for getting herself recovered. In order to compensate her adequately, the trial Court ought to have imposed sentence of fine to a higher extent. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances and having heard the learned advocates on record on the question of sentence, we proceed to pass the following order. 1. The impugned Judgment & Order of acquittal acquitting Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307, 114 r/w 34 IPC stands confirmed. 2. The impugned Judgment & Order of conviction convicting Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC stands confirmed. 3. The impugned Judgment of the trial Court not imposing sentence of imprisonment against Accused Nos.1 to 3 also stands confirmed. 4. The sentence of fine imposed on Accused Nos.1 to 3 by the trial Court is modified and the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Each of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default, Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall undergo imprisonment for a period of four months. 5. The fine amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited by each of Accused Nos.1 to 3 within two months from this date. The fine, if any already deposited shall be adjusted while paying the remaining fine amount. In case of deposit of entire fine amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.20,000/- x 3), an amount of Rs.35,000/- shall be paid as compensation to PW.3 – Chandramma; an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the injured PW.4 – Rajammanni (Rajamani); an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the injured PW.5 – Raghuveera; and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- fine shall vest with the State. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1262/2012 is allowed in part and Criminal Appeal No. 796/2012 is dismissed.