JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.06.2011 convicting the appellant and order of sentence dated 21.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yadgir in S.C.No.62/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC wherein the trial Court has sentenced the appellant-accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 504 R/W Section 34 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 R/W Section 34 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of two years, for the offence punishable under Section 324 R/W section 34 of IPC and two years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief facts unfurled in the case start from the complaint lodged by Bapugouda S/o Siddanagouda Doddamani, r/o M. Bommanahalli wherein he states that on 21.07.2007 at 7.00 a.m. when he was in the garden land, his uncle Shivanagouda was going from garden land to the house, by that time accused No.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained his uncle, abused him in vulgar language for having filed a case against them and accused No.1 Channappa hit him with a club on the back and also hit him with Chappal. Meanwhile, when the complainant went to the rescue of his uncle, by that time, accused No.2 Shrishail and accused No.3 Mudukappa hit him with clubs on his right thigh and accused No.2 Shrishail stabbed him on his right thigh with knife. When the complainant was screaming, Sharanappa, Mareppa, Sharanagouda and Shanthgouda came and rescue. On the said complaint a case came to be registered in crime No.134/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC. 3. The Investigating agency, after investigation, submitted final report against the accused for the above said offences. On presentation of the case by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 323 and 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, they were put on the trial. 4. On presentation of the case by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 323 and 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, they were put on the trial. 4. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10, and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.7 and material objects as M.Os.1 and 2. The accused were also examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW.1 and 2 and got marked documents Ex.D.1 and D.2. After examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and has failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt as against accused No.2 and 3. Accordingly, the Trial Judge has acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 and convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC and sentenced the appellant accused No.1 as stated supra. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused would submit that PWs.3, 4 and 8 are related to each other, as such, they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted. Though PW.3 stated to have sustained injuries, he has not been treated by the doctor. To counter blast the case lodged against PWs.3 and 4, the complainant has lodged the present case against the appellant and others. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that on detail examination of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case against accused No.1 and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused No.1. There is no room for this Court to interfere with the judgment convicting the appellant and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 8. Complainant-Bapugouda was examined as PW.8. There is no room for this Court to interfere with the judgment convicting the appellant and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 8. Complainant-Bapugouda was examined as PW.8. According to this witness, on the date of incident, after his uncle PW.3 Shivanagouda went to the house from the garden land, and after some time this witness heard screaming voice and he went there and saw accused were quarrelling with his uncle Shivanagouda and accused No.1 Channappa hitting his uncle and when this witness went to his rescue, accused No.1 hit him with a club on his right thigh and accused No.2 Shrishail pierced knife on the thigh of this witness. Sharanappa, Mariyappa and Shanthagouda came and rescued. 9. PW.3 Shivanagouda is the injured in the incident. He states that on the date of incident he was returning home from his garden land, at that time accused persons forming a group and abused him in filthy language. On hearing the news, Bapugouda, Shanthgouda, Sharanappa and Mariyappa came there and accused No.1 Channappa threatened that he is going to take away life and hit this witness on the back and also hit him with Chappal. When Bapugouda came to his rescue, accused No.3 Mudukappa hit him with a club on his thigh and accused Shrishail him with a knife on his thigh and inflicted bleeding injuries. 10. PW.1 Sharanappa and PW.2 Mariyappa are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident, but they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 11. According to prosecution PW.4 Sharanagouda is eyewitness to the incident. According to this witness at 7.00 a.m. while he was returning home after answering second call of nature, by that time, the accused persons picked up quarrel with PW.3 Shivanagouda near graveyard questioning him as to why he filed the case against them. Further the accused channappa hit PW.3 Shivanagouda with a club on his back and the accused Channappa also hit him with Chappal on his back. This witness and Bapugouda went to the rescue of Shivanagouda, at that time, accused Channappa hit Bapugouda with knife on his right thigh. 12. PW.5 Shanthagouda has stated in his evidence that there was verbal quarrel and altercation between accused Channappa and Shivanagouda in the village and he has witnessed the incident at a distance of 300 feet. He has stated that accused Channappa hit Shivanagouda with chappal on his back. 12. PW.5 Shanthagouda has stated in his evidence that there was verbal quarrel and altercation between accused Channappa and Shivanagouda in the village and he has witnessed the incident at a distance of 300 feet. He has stated that accused Channappa hit Shivanagouda with chappal on his back. He does not know the reason for the quarrel. This witness was treated hostile and cross-examined at length by the prosecution. But nothing was elicited in his cross-examination. 13. PW.6 Guttappagouda is a mahazar witness, he turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 14. PW.7 Dr. Gouri Shankar, the then Medical Officer of PHC, Kembhavi states about examination of the injured Bapugouda and issuing wound certificate Ex.P.4. 15. PW.9 Basanagouda is a mahazar witness to the spot mahazar-Ex.P.6. He has stated that police conducted spot mahazar in the presence of this witness and Guttappagouda and seizing of two clubs under the mahazar. 16. PW.10 Ramesh the then Head Constable of Kembhavi Police Station stated about the formalities of investigation. 17. As defence witnesses, accused have examined one Mohd. Jameel, ASI of Kembhavi Police Station as DW.1 to speak regarding registration of earlier case in Cr.No.133/2007 against Shivanagouda and others. 18. DW.2 Premgouda was examined to speak about stay of the accused No.3 Ravi in the hostel at Surpur. 19. In the context and circumstances of the case and the perusal of the evidence goes to show that there are two groups in the village Bommanalli wherein each of them is having enmity against the other. The injured in this case and the other group consisting of Channabasappa and others are being engaged in quarrelling now and then. In fact, the present case and the another one registered in crime No.133/2007 are the latest examples. Just prior to this case, this Court has disposed of the Criminal Appeal No.3618/2011 arising out of the said crime number. It is seen that the over enthusiasm and lack of self realisation appear to be compelling the parties to file complaint against each other and committing offences through manhandling and beating. However, in this case, on perusing the entire evidence on record, PWs.1, 2 and PW.5 who are stated to be eyewitness to the incident have turned hostile to the prosecution case. It was submitted that that PW.3 Shivanagouda and PW.4 Sharanagouda are accused Nos.5 and 6 in the counter case. However, in this case, on perusing the entire evidence on record, PWs.1, 2 and PW.5 who are stated to be eyewitness to the incident have turned hostile to the prosecution case. It was submitted that that PW.3 Shivanagouda and PW.4 Sharanagouda are accused Nos.5 and 6 in the counter case. No doubt that the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 appears to be exaggerated. PW.8 Bapugouda is also said to be injured in this case. The evidence on record shows that the accused persons alleged to have committed the overt-acts by arriving one after another. 20. On contextual reading of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the firm finding that there are no materials to hold the appellant-accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC. However, considering the evidence on record, there is evidence to hold the appellant-accused No.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, the following: ORDER : The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment convicting the appellant and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yadgir is set aside for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 504 R/W Section 34 of IPC. However, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is confirmed and the sentence is modified. The appellant-accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Send a copy of this judgment along with records to the trial Court forthwith.