JUDGMENT : Criminal Appeal No.3506/2011 is filed by the State challenging the sentence imposed on accused by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2011 passed by President Officer, Fast Track Court-I/II, Bijapur in Sessions Case No.150/2009. Criminal Appeal No.3612/2011 is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence praying to set aside the same. Since both the appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they were heard together. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that on 21.05.208 at about 12.00 noon, all the accused being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object entered the house of complainant with deadly armed weapons like iron rod, sticks, stones axe and chilly powder and assaulted the complainant by means of stones and thereby the accused have committed the offences in order to eliminate husband of the complainant, they also abused them in filthy language. Accused No.1 held the hairs of the complainant and pulled her sari and thereby he outraged her modesty. Therefore, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. 3. On the complaint of Sharada W/o Ramesh Jagirdar, Almel Police registered the case and after investigation filed the charge sheet. The complainant has stated in her complaint that she is residing along with her husband and in-laws in the hut situated in their land. There was a dispute between her family and the brothers of her father-in-law viz. Accused persons in respect of the landed properties, as a result of which, the accused in prosecution of their common object entered her house and assaulted herself and her husband with deadly weapons like stones and sticks, she has also stated that accused No.1 held her hairs and tried to outrage her modesty. Further it is stated that one Ningappa, Mallappa and others intervened and pacified the quarrel. 4. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the accused appeared before the Sessions Court and pleaded not guilty for the aforesaid charges and as such the accused were subjected to trial. In order to prove of the charges against the accused, the prosecution has got examined in all 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and MO No.1 to 5. In order to prove of the charges against the accused, the prosecution has got examined in all 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and MO No.1 to 5. Thereafter, the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC and recorded their statement by giving opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The case of the accused is that of total denial, they have not adduced any evidence in defence. After hearing the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment whereby accused No.1 to 6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. The accused were sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The accused were sentence to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The accused were sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and SI for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 5. The State being aggrieved by the sentence imposed by the Trial Court has filed the appeal seeking for enhancement of the sentence and for imposing separate sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 of IPC and also to enhance the sentence of 3 years awarded for the offence under section 307 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years along with fine. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the conviction, the accused have filed the appeal on the following grounds. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case, other than being contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts. The Trial Court has gravely erred in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and has misinterpreted the evidence placed on record, only to convict the appellants, the impugned judgment suffers from proper appreciation of the evidence which has resulted injustice to the appellants. The prosecution in order to prove the charges has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW2 to PW7 and PW9 out of them PW2, PW3 and PW9 are the injured witnesses. The prosecution in order to prove the charges has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW2 to PW7 and PW9 out of them PW2, PW3 and PW9 are the injured witnesses. There are contradictions in their evidence and they being highly interested in the prosecution, their evidence requires to be analyzed critically and carefully. PW6 and PW7 are the witnesses who have only separated the quarrel, are not witnesses to the incident as such. The evidence of PW9 the complainant is not truthful, does not inspire confidence. According to her she along with PW3 and PW5 went to Vijay Hospital after the incident. However the evidence PW3 and 5 shows that they accompanied the complainant to the Police Station. Therefore, the accused have urged that viewed from any angle, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to be acquitted of the alleged charges. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, the following points arise for our consideration. (1) Whether, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused is illegal against the law and material on record? (2) Whether, the sentence passed against the accused is illegal and against the law and needs to be interfered with? (3) What order? 8. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of Section 31 Cr.PC, the Court is required to sentence the accused separately for each offences where they are convicted for several offences at one trial. Therefore, he further submitted that the trial Court has not separately sentenced the accused for the offences 143, 147, 148 IPC which is against the law and as such the sentence imposed by the trial Court has to be modified. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of PW15 Dr. Suresh, Medical Officer, who examined PW3 and PW5. But he did not examine PW2 the main victim in the case and it is his clear evidence that the injury sustained by the injured might have been caused with hard and blunt object and not by sharp edged weapons like axe. The learned counsel submitted that PW2 the victim has stated that he was unconscious for two days whereas the police officer PW8 has stated that he has recorded his statement on the same day of the alleged incident. The learned counsel submitted that PW2 the victim has stated that he was unconscious for two days whereas the police officer PW8 has stated that he has recorded his statement on the same day of the alleged incident. The learned counsel further submitted that absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Learned counsel for the accused has produced certified copy of compromise decree subsequently passed between the accused and the complainant in a partition suit. Raju namely PW1 in the present case himself had filed O.S.No.199/2016 against some of the accused persons in this case and the said partition suit came to be compromised and compromise decree was passed before the Court. On the basis of this subsequent event the learned counsel submitted that now there is no dispute between the parties and this circumstance may be considered. 9. This Court being the appellate Court, it is necessary to re-appreciate the evidence on record and then come to the proper conclusion as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is sustainable in law or the same needs to be interfered with. At the same time, this Court has to decide as to whether order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is against the law and its needs to be interfered with. 10. It is the case of the complainant Smt. Sharada examined as PW9 that there was a dispute between her husband and the accused persons in respect of landed properties namely the dispute was between her family and brothers of her father-in-law. This is the motive against the accused, in this connection the accused formed into unlawful assembly and entered her house at 12 Noon on 21.05.2008 and assaulted her husband and herself and her father-inlaw and mother-in-law. It is her complaint that the accused intended to eliminate her husband and in prosecution of their such a common object they committed the alleged offences. 11. The oral evidence of the prosecution reveals that PW1-Raju is a witness to the spot mahazer Ex.P1 and seizure of MO1 to MO5 weapons. PW2-Ramesh is the injured and he is the husband of complainant, PW9 is Sharada, her evidence has to be considered along with the evidence of PW3- Shantabai who are also stated to be injured. Further the evidence of PW15-Dr. Suresh, Medical Officer has to be considered. PW2-Ramesh is the injured and he is the husband of complainant, PW9 is Sharada, her evidence has to be considered along with the evidence of PW3- Shantabai who are also stated to be injured. Further the evidence of PW15-Dr. Suresh, Medical Officer has to be considered. PW2 has narrated the alleged incident in his evidence before the Court. According to him while he was taking bath, the accused entered his house, accused No.1 and 3 assaulted him by means of iron rod on his leg and back and accused No.2 assaulted him by means of axe on his head, thereby caused bleeding injuries. He has further stated that when his wife intervened to pacify the quarrel, the accused No.1 assaulted his wife with iron rod on her back and accused No.3 and 6 with a stone. Further according to him one Ningappa, Malkanna, Shasappa, Salotgi, Kodekal and Allisab intervened and pacified the quarrel, thereafter he was shifted to hospital. PW3-Shantabai is mother of PW2 she is also injured in the alleged incident, she has narrated the alleged incident before the Court. However, she has not stated that the accused assaulted PW2 with axe on his head. PW4 –Laxmibai is examined as eye witness, she has narrated the alleged incident. However, she does not say that the accused assaulted PW2 with iron rod and axe. PW5- Sitaram is the father of PW2. He has also narrated the alleged incident. 12. PW6-Ningappa and PW7-Malkanna are the witnesses who intervened and the pacified the quarrel. According to them on hearing the screaming, they came to the spot and separated and pacified the quarrel. They do not say about the assault by particular accused on PW2, PW3 or PW5. PW8 is the ASI who received the complaint from PW9 and he registered the case and he has draw the spot panchanama as per Ex.P1 and seized MO1 to MO5. 13. PW9 Smt. Sharada is the complainant, she has narrated the alleged incident before the Court. She is the wife of PW2, she has deposed that accused No.2 assaulted on the head of her husband with an axe and accused Ravi with a steel rod and when she intervened to rescue her husband accused No.3 held her hairs and pulled her. She has further stated about the intervention of Allisab, Ningappa, Malkanna who pacified the quarrel. She is the wife of PW2, she has deposed that accused No.2 assaulted on the head of her husband with an axe and accused Ravi with a steel rod and when she intervened to rescue her husband accused No.3 held her hairs and pulled her. She has further stated about the intervention of Allisab, Ningappa, Malkanna who pacified the quarrel. In her cross examination she has stated that she do not know the contents of her complaint after lodging the complaint, she went to Vijayapur Civil Hospital. She admits that she has not disclosed the names of assailants before the doctor who examined herself and her mother-in-law. 14. PW11-Allisab and PW12-Amruth are examined as eye witnesses, they have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. 15. PW13-Malkayya, the police officer arrested the accused and released them on bail. PW14-Ravindra Kurubgatti then CPI collected the wound certificate and filed charge sheet and he is not the I.O. in the case. The I.O. who investigated the matter was not examined before the Trial Court. 16. The evidence of the injured witnesses has to be appreciated along with the evidence of PW15-Dr. Suresh Shankar Adi, the Medical Officer. He has deposed before the Court that on 21.05.2008 he has examined Sharada R. Jagirdar namely the complainant and found a lacerated wound on front parietal region which is simple in nature. On the same day, he also examined one Vilas Sitaram Jahagirdar and found two lacerated wounds and multiple abrasion on his person. However, this witnesses is not examined before the Court. On the same day he examined Shantabai Sitaram Jahagirdar namely PW3 and found that she had sustained lacerated wound on the left frontal region of head and soft tissue injury i.e. multiple abrasions on both knees. The patient was referred the District Hospital, Bijapur. Accordingly he has issued wound certificates produced at Ex.P5 to Ex.P7. Therefore, it is crystal clear that PW15 has never examined PW2 – Ramesh, who is the injured and victim of the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC. In his cross examination PW15 has stated that he has examined all the injured in the hospital. The injured have not disclosed the names of assailants. He has specifically stated that he has not examined one Ramesh Sitaram Jahagirdar namely PW2 the husband of the complainant. In his cross examination PW15 has stated that he has examined all the injured in the hospital. The injured have not disclosed the names of assailants. He has specifically stated that he has not examined one Ramesh Sitaram Jahagirdar namely PW2 the husband of the complainant. He has stated that material objects were shown to him by the police, but he has not examined the MOs and has not given any opinion. He has further stated that injuries sustained by the injured are not grievous in nature, they are all simple. Therefore, by the evidence of PW15 Dr. Suresh it becomes crystal clear that PW2 Ramesh was not examined by him and wound certificate of PW2 is not issued by him. The prosecution has not produced any wound certificate in respect of PW2 nor proved the injuries sustained by PW2 by examining the doctor who examined PW2. 17. The learned counsel for the accused relying on the decision in the case of Dinesh and another V/s State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 423 submitted that investigation officer has not referred the weapons to the doctor and has not obtained his opinion as to whether injury sustained by the injured could have been caused by the said weapons and therefore there is a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. In the above said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered similar situation wherein it is held that “On seizure, the weapons were not referred to Dr. Arvind for soliciting opinion, if the injuries as sustained by Santra Devi could have been caused by the weapons which were seized as weapons of offence. When Dr. Arvind appeared in the witness box, then also, neither the prosecutor (whose primary duty it was) nor the learned Judge presiding over the trial, took care to show the weapons to him and solicit opinion of Dr.Arvind whether the injuries suffered by Santra Devi could have been caused by any of the weapons exhibited in the court” Therefore in the present case also admittedly the weapons seized in the case were not referred to PW15 Dr.Suresh and the I.O. has not obtained his opinion as to whether the injury sustained by PW2, PW3 and PW5 could be caused by the said weapons. In fact, the injury sustained by PW2 are not at all proved before the Court. In fact, the injury sustained by PW2 are not at all proved before the Court. Since neither his wound certificate was produced nor the medical officer who examined him was examined before the Court. Therefore as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said case, this circumstance would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Similar proposition is laid down in another case between Machindra V/s Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb and others, reported in (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 381. Therefore in the present case, the evidence of injured witnesses and the medical officer namely PW5- Dr.Suresh goes to show that the injuries sustained by PW3 and PW5 were simple in nature and they were not caused by sharp edged weapons like axe. Therefore it is crystal clear that assault on the parietal region of head of PW2 with axe and causing grievous injuries is ruled out. As already stated even the wound certificate of PW2 is not produced nor proved that he had sustained any injuries on his parietal region of the head. This would show that prosecution has conducted the case in a causal manner. PW2 Ramesh being the alleged victim of the offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution was expected to produce cogent evidence to prove that the accused with an intention of committing the murder of PW2 assaulted on the vital part of his body with sharp edged weapon like axe, iron rod and stones as alleged in the charge. On the other hand, the prosecution has failed to produce even the wound certificate in respect of PW2 to show that he had sustained any injuries at all. Therefore, the evidence on record as a whole considered it becomes crystal clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 307 of IPC. So also the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 of IPC are not proved. However, the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 504 R/w 149 of IPC. 18. The learned judge after convicting all the accused for the offences under section 143, 147, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. While imposing the sentence has not imposed any sentence in respect of the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 IPC. 18. The learned judge after convicting all the accused for the offences under section 143, 147, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. While imposing the sentence has not imposed any sentence in respect of the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 IPC. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Section 31 of Cr.PC. provides for sentencing of accused on conviction of several offences at one trial separately. Therefore, it is necessary for the Court to impose separate sentence for each offences including the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 of IPC. Without the aid of Section 143, 147, 148 and 149, the accused cannot be convicted for other offences. Under these circumstances, we hold that it is necessary to impose separate sentence for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148 of IPC also. 19. In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences under Section 307 and 506 of IPC against the accused and as such they are entitled to be acquitted of the said offences. We have also come to the conclusion that the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 R/w 149 of IPC are proved against the accused and proper and necessary sentence have to be passed against the accused for the said offences. It is also held that the accused have to be separately sentenced for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 of IPC. 20. At this stage, we have considered the feasibility of extending the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act. The incident in question occurred on 21.05.2008, 10 years have elapsed and as such we hold that at this stage, it is not feasible to invoke provisions of Probation of offenders Act. It is also submitted that the parties have compromised the civil dispute and now there is no dispute between the parties. Under these circumstances, we consider it is proper to impose sentence of imprisonment, already undergone by the accused during the enquiry and trial of the case and further to sentence them to pay fine for the offences which are proved against the accused. We answer the points accordingly and proceed to pass the following… ORDER Both appeals are partly allowed. Under these circumstances, we consider it is proper to impose sentence of imprisonment, already undergone by the accused during the enquiry and trial of the case and further to sentence them to pay fine for the offences which are proved against the accused. We answer the points accordingly and proceed to pass the following… ORDER Both appeals are partly allowed. Accused No.1 to 6 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307 & 506 of IPC. The conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 R/w S.149 of IPC is confirmed and the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment, already undergone by them during enquiry and trial of the case and further accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred only) each for the offence under Section 143 R/w Sec.149 of IPC in default to undergo SI for 10 days. Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence under Section 147 R/w Sec.149 of IPC in default to undergo SI for 10 days. Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence under Section 148 R/w Sec.149 of IPC in default to undergo SI for 10 days. Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 323 R/w Sec.149 of IPC in default to undergo SI for 15 days. Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 324 R/w Sec.149 of IPC in default to undergo SI for one month. Accused No.1 to 6 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 504 R/w Sec.149 of IPC in default to undergo SI for 15 days. We further order that out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW2-Ramesh as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.PC and the remaining amount shall be remitted to the State. Accused No.1 to 6 are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith for payment of fine amount in default to undergo SI as directed.