ORDER : This is the revision petition filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 26/27.05.2010 passed by the C.J. (Jr. Dn.) JMFC court at Tirthahalli in C.C. No. 731/2003 and also the judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court at Shivamogga, in Crl. A. No.49/2010. 2. By the judgment and order of conviction, the trial court convicting the revision petitioner accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 and 504 of the IPC and acquitted the said accused for the offence under Section 323. So also acquitted accused No.2 and 3 from all the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction the revision petitioner – accused No.1 preferred the criminal appeal and the First Appellate Court also after re-appreciating the materials dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner is before this court in this revision petition. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case that complainant, accused No.1 and one H.O. Shreekantha are the brothers and there has been a dispute among them in respect of division of the land bearing Sy. No.39 of Holekoppa Village, Tirthahalli Taluk, being their joint family property and there was an order to maintain status-quoin a civil suit filed by the complainant and not to install any pump-set in the pump-house in the said survey number land and not to pump the water by any of the parties. No.39 of Holekoppa Village, Tirthahalli Taluk, being their joint family property and there was an order to maintain status-quoin a civil suit filed by the complainant and not to install any pump-set in the pump-house in the said survey number land and not to pump the water by any of the parties. It is further alleged in the complaint Ex.P1 that on 20.02.2003 at about 5.30 PM, the revision petitioner herein along with accused No. 2 and 3 came to the said pump-house to install the pumpset and to draw the water from the river to the land of accused No.1 and at that time, when the complainant objected to install the pump-set stating that there is a court order to maintain status quo and being enraged by this, the accused No.1 abused the complainant with vulgur words, “XXXXXXX” and assaulted on his left hand thumb, due to which the bone of the thumb was broken at its base and accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold of him and fisted on him by hands and when he cried, one H.M. Raveendra, H.T. Hareesha and H.T. Krishmamurthy came and pacified the scuffle and hence the complainant requested the police to take action against the accused persons. On the basis of said complaint, the I.O. conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the said offences. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses and produced the documents at Ex. P1 to P5 and one material object MO1 got marked. On the side of the defence, no witness examined, nor any documents were produced. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent State. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner during the course of arguments made the submission that looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no satisfactory and acceptable material produced by the prosecution to prove its case. He submitted that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of complainant PW1 is not worth believable. He submitted that there are civil disputes between the brothers and stay orders were passed by the civil court. Even PW1 admitted during the course of his evidence that there were such disputes since 13 years between them. He submitted that there are civil disputes between the brothers and stay orders were passed by the civil court. Even PW1 admitted during the course of his evidence that there were such disputes since 13 years between them. He also submitted that even with regards to seizure of MO1 the iron rod, the evidence produced by the prosecution witness is not acceptable and it also creates doubt whether really such material object was used in committing the said offence. Hence it is his submission that inspite of these infirmities in the case of the prosecution the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have wrongly read the evidence both oral and documentary and wrongly convicted the revision petitioner – accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 326 and 504 of the IPC. Hence he submitted that though the present proceeding is a revision petition, though the scope is limited, when there is illegality committed by the courts below in appreciating the factual aspects and when the wrong reading of the facts is there, certainly this court can interfere in this revision petition. Hence, he submitted to allow the revision petition and to set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court and which is confirmed by the first appellate court. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP made the submission that the complainant PW1 consistently deposed in his evidence about the assault made by accused No.1 with the iron road and caused the fracture injury to the thumb. He also submitted that to prove the same, doctor’s evidence is there and Injury Certificate is also produced before the court. It is also his submission that other witnesses have also deposed before the court about the happening of the incident and also seizure of the iron rod under the mahazar, Ex.P2. It is also the submission of the learned HCGP that when PW1 is an injured witness, why he has to be disbelieved, he is a natural witness and there is no reason for PW1 falsely to implicate the accused persons in the case. It is also his submission that there are concurrent findings of the court below with regard to the factual aspects of the matter and this court is a revisional court wherein the scope is very limited and this court cannot interfere so far as the factual aspects are concerned. It is also his submission that there are concurrent findings of the court below with regard to the factual aspects of the matter and this court is a revisional court wherein the scope is very limited and this court cannot interfere so far as the factual aspects are concerned. Hence he submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition and same is to be dismissed. 8. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition, judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and judgment and order of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. So also, I have perused the other materials as the original records are secured. 9. It is no doubt true, as submitted by the learned HCGP, in the revision jurisdiction, the court is having a limited jurisdiction and cannot go into the factual aspects in detail just like the First Appellate Court. As the First Appellate Court is the last court about the factual aspects are concerned, but that does not mean that this court in the revision petition cannot look into the factual aspects at all times. If the revision petitioner made out a case that there is a wrong reading of the oral evidence of the parties and wrong interpretation of the oral evidence, in the circumstances, certainly, this court can look into those factual aspects to come to a right conclusion. 10. In view of the above, let me examine the materials placed on record. Ex.P1 is the complaint field by PW1. It is no doubt true, in this complaint, the complainant has mentioned date of the incident, time and about the assault said to have been made by accused No. 1, 2 and 3 on him. But when the oral evidence of the parties recorded, PW1, the complainant has deposed that on that day, assault was made by accused No.1 with an iron rod and accused No. 2 and 3 who caught hold him tightly and fisted him. It is also stated that the accused persons abused him in filthy language. But during the course of cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.P1 was written by the police and he does not know what is written in Ex.P1. It is also stated that the accused persons abused him in filthy language. But during the course of cross-examination, he deposed that Ex.P1 was written by the police and he does not know what is written in Ex.P1. This statement by PW1 on oath before the court clearly goes to show that he has not narrated the contents of Ex.p1 to the police and it is the police on their own wrote the contents of Ex.P1. He also admitted in his evidence that there are civil proceedings in between him and the accused persons. He also admitted that the eyewitnesses namely Raveendra and Venkatesha, there are criminal cases field by the accused No.1 against those witnesses. He also admitted that in the said case Ravindra was convicted. He also admitted that accused No.1 filed a criminal case against him alleging theft of utensil (hande). So this evidence of PW1 also goes to show that there are cases before the courts of law in between the complainant and the accused persons. He specifically admitted that in between himself and accused No.1 there are cases and disputes since 13 years. His evidence also goes to show that he has admitted the place where the pump-house was constructed, it was granted to accused No.1 and he has also deposed thereafter the accused No.1 put the pump set and through the pump-set he is getting water to the land, Sy. No.39. The oral evidence of the PW1 clearly show that the relationship in between the accused No.1 and complainant is not cordial and there were civil and criminal cases in between them. When this is so, it cannot be said that PW1 is said to be a natural witness and the possibility that PW1 because of the earlier disputes giving the false complaint against the accused persons cannot be completely ruled out in view of his own deposition in the cross-examination. 11. It is his allegation that accused No.1 assaulted him with iron road and caused the injury to the thumb finger. It is no doubt true as submitted by the learned HCGP there is a doctors evidence and the injury certificate is also there. But the question is whether the said injury is caused by the accused No.1 or not. It is also true that learned HCGP submitted that when PW1 is the injured witness why his evidence is to be disbelieved. 12. But the question is whether the said injury is caused by the accused No.1 or not. It is also true that learned HCGP submitted that when PW1 is the injured witness why his evidence is to be disbelieved. 12. As per the case of the complainant, H.M. Ravindra, H.T. Krishnamurthy, H.T. Harisha are the eye witnesses to the incident who came to pacify the parties. Even looking to the evidence of H.M. Ravindra, who has been examined as P.W.3 before the trial Court, has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During the course of cross examination by the prosecutor, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.3 to believe the story of prosecution. H.T. Harisha is also one of the witnesses who has not been examined before the Court. H.T. Krishnamurthy is examined as P.W.2 and in his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that he came to the spot after galata. This itself clearly goes to show that he has not personally witnessed the incident. Another witness Srikantaiah who claims to be an eye witness to the incident has been examined as P.W.6. Looking to his oral evidence, he has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. In the cross examination of P.W.6, nothing worth has been elicited to believe the story of prosecution. Therefore, all the independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and the only evidence regarding the incident is that of complainant (P.W.1). 13. I have also perused para No.28 of the judgment of the trial Court wherein the trial Court has observed as under:- 13. “only P.W.1 has deposed that the accused no.1 has assaulted him with MO1. But, the said assault was not witnesses by any other independent witnesses and it may create a doubt about the assault by the accused No.1. a whole reading of the entire case, it is very clear that the accused no.1 has assaulted CW1 as alleged. Because, at the time of the alleged assault, only the accused no.1 to 3 and PW1 were present at the spot of incident and moreover, it is the land. Even though there are a few houses, they are situated at a particular distance from each other as the houses are built in the agricultural lands and the movement of other people will generally be less at such a place. Even though there are a few houses, they are situated at a particular distance from each other as the houses are built in the agricultural lands and the movement of other people will generally be less at such a place. Under these circumstances, the Court can presume that there could be an assault on PW1 by the accused no.1 as alleged.” 14. Even reading the aforesaid observation made by the trial Court in its judgment, it goes to show that according to the trial judge, it creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the assault by accused No.1. The trial Court has observed that it can presume or that there can be assault by P.W.1. The case cannot be decided on presumption and assumption. The prosecution has not placed acceptable and worth believable material to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The seizure mahazar (Ex.P.1) is also not helpful to the case of prosecution because as per the panch witnesses, the iron rod said to have been seized from the spot, which was in the land wherein the complainant (P.W.1) himself has deposed that he has handed over the iron rod taking out from his house. This is again contrary to the contents of the mahazar (Ex.P.2). 15. As I have already observed above and at the cost of repetition, P.W.1 admitted that there are civil and criminal proceedings between himself and accused No.1. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the possibility of the complainant falsely implicating accused No.1 in the case cannot be completely ruled out and reasonable doubt arises as to the case of prosecution case whether really such incident has taken place and whether really the revision petitioner accused has involved in the case. The benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the petitioner accused No.1. Perusing the judgment and order of the trial Court, all these material aspects were not correctly appreciated and considered by the Courts below. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is justified in making the submission that there is wrong reading of the evidence and wrong conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. Even looking to the judgment of the first appellate Court, the material aspects were not appreciated by the said Court in the correct perspective and it is not correct in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Even looking to the judgment of the first appellate Court, the material aspects were not appreciated by the said Court in the correct perspective and it is not correct in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Hence the revision petitioner has made out a case that there is illegality committed by the Courts below convicting him for the said offence. The approach of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court is perverse and capricious. Hence, this Court can certainly interfere with such judgment and order of the Courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court convicting the revision petitioner accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 504 of IPC is hereby set aside so also the judgment and order of the first appellate Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner is hereby set aside. The revision petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 504 of IPC. The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioner accused No.1 stands cancelled. The fine amount if deposited by the revision petitioner either before this Court or before the trial Court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.