JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada in S.C.No.59/2009 dated 10.03.2010, convicting the accused appellant herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The factual matrix of this appeal are as under: On filing of the complaint by the injured, a crime came to be registered against the accused, alleging that, about one year back, the complainant had paid Rs.5,000/to the accused and on the previous day i.e., on 05.03.2008 he called the accused over phone and asked him to repay the sum of Rs.5,000/. On 06.03.2008, in the morning the complainant had gone to the shop of one Abbas in order to get things for his house. At that time, the accused came there and called him stating that he wanted to talk to the complainant and he took the complainant little away near the road and abused him in filthy language and he assaulted the victim with a sickle pointing it to the neck of the victim and the victim tried to ward off through his right hand, he sustained injuries to his right forearm. When the victim was tried to escape from the place accused again assaulted him by sickle on the backside of his left leg and also back side of his right leg, as a result of which the victim fell down. On seeing the incident, one Abbas and the neighbours came there and pacified the quarrel. But the accused also threatened the victim of taking out his life and walked away with the sickle. 3. The said Abbas informed the incident to the house of the victim over phone and brother of the complainant Ramesh came to the spot and took the injured to the Government Hospital, Puttur where the Medical Officer gave first aid treatment and referred the injured to Mahaveera Hospital, Puttur and the injured was an inpatient in that hospital. 3. The said Abbas informed the incident to the house of the victim over phone and brother of the complainant Ramesh came to the spot and took the injured to the Government Hospital, Puttur where the Medical Officer gave first aid treatment and referred the injured to Mahaveera Hospital, Puttur and the injured was an inpatient in that hospital. As the victim demanded Rs.5,000/- which he had paid to the accused, the accused got angry and assaulted the victim by means of a sickle. On the basis of the complaint lodged, a case was registered against the accused and charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC, wherein the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed and claims to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 12 and got marked 13 documents as at Exs.P.1 to P.13(a) and material objects as MOs. 1 to 3. Section 313 statement also recorded wherein the accused denied the allegations made against him. The accused did not come forward to adduce the defence evidence. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence lead in by the prosecution, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 306 and 506 of IPC and has been imposed sentence as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by accused. 5. Heard Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned Government Pleader for the State. 6. Smt.Hasleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, who are the victim and the eyewitnesses to the incident and PW10 who is the medical officer who has treated the victim and who has issued the wound certificate – Ex.P7 and also the opinion report regarding the weapon used for the commission of the offence. PW.1 has stated that accused hit him by using a sickle and PW.2 who is an eyewitness to the incident states that he went to the scene of occurrence after he heard some noise and when he went to the spot he saw the victim with injuries and accused holding the sickle. PWs. PW.1 has stated that accused hit him by using a sickle and PW.2 who is an eyewitness to the incident states that he went to the scene of occurrence after he heard some noise and when he went to the spot he saw the victim with injuries and accused holding the sickle. PWs. 3 to 5 are said to be the eyewitnesses to the incident but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, they turned hostile. PW.10 is the medical officer of Government Hospital, Puttur who has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P7 and also Ex.P8 opinion regarding the weapon. The medical officer has not clearly stated whether it is the sickle or talwar. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record relating to the injuries inflicted over the person of the injured by means of a sickle or talwar and the trial court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the accused has used sickle for committing the offence. It is also the submission made by the learned counsel that the evidence placed on record is contradictory to the conclusion reached by the trial court. Hence, requests that the same is required to be reconsidered by this Court in its proper perspective. The learned counsel seeks for extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Even though the accused has not adduced any evidence positively, the trial court ought to have considered whether the injuries inflicted over the person of the injured as indicated at Ex.P7 wound certificate is either by means of a sickle or talwar. 8. It is further contended that admittedly the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of the complaint and the evidence of PW.10 who is the medical officer who had treated the victim and has given the opinion that the injury inflicted on the person of the injured is either by sickle or talwar. But the same has not been proved by the prosecution by placing cogent, corroborative and positive evidence. The injured suffered fracture of tibia and other lacerated wounds as per the wound certificate. But the same has not been proved by the prosecution by placing cogent, corroborative and positive evidence. The injured suffered fracture of tibia and other lacerated wounds as per the wound certificate. But the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused for the offences as aforestated and sentenced the accused under Section 307 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period for three years and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim and in default to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 9. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHYAM SHARMA vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER in Criminal Appeal No.1799/2010 dated 04.10.2017, wherein the offence under Section 307 of IPC was termed as Section 324 of IPC. 10. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that by considering the above submissions, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant/accused be acquitted of the offences alleged against him. 11. On the other hand, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned Government Pleader for the State supports the judgment of the trial court and submits that the trial court, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, that too of the evidence of PW.1 who is the injured and also the evidence of PWs. 2 and 6 which is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 and also the evidence of PWs. 9, 10, 11 and 12 substantially prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used MO.3 sickle for causing injuries on the person of the injured and also the fact that the accused threatened to the life of the injured and hence prays for dismissal of this appeal confirming the order passed by the trial court. 12. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondent/State, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether the court below was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC? 13. 12. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondent/State, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether the court below was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC? 13. On hearing the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on an evaluation of the material on record, it is to be seen that PW1 is the injured victim and also the complainant who lodged complaint against the accused as per Ex.P.1. PW2 is an eyewitness to the incident and the incident has occurred near his shop and he is the panch witness for taksheer spot mahazar Ex.P.3. PW. 3 is the witness who has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence turned hostile. PW.4 is an eyewitness to the incident and is a witness for the panch mahazar at Ex.P2. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and hence turned hostile. PW.5 is the witness who has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence he turned hostile. PW.6 is the brother of the injured PW1. He came to the spot on knowing about the incident and he immediately shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Puttur and from there, on the advice of the doctor he took the injured to Mahaveer Hospital, Puttur and he has given evidence regarding the injuries to his brother. PW.7 is the panch witness for takshir spot mahazar at Ex.P3. PW.8 is the panch witness for the mahazar at Ex.P6. Pw.9 is the panch witness for the mahazar at Ex.P2. PW.10 is the medical officer who has treated the injured and also issued the wound certificate and the opinion regarding the use of weapons on the person of the injured. PW.11 is the Scientific Officer who has examined the items sent to her for examination by the Uppinangady Police Station. PW.12 is the Investigation Officer who conducted the case. He visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar and also recorded the statement of PW2 and others. He has arrested the accused and took the voluntary statement of the accused and seized the weapon used for the offence. 14. PW.12 is the Investigation Officer who conducted the case. He visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar and also recorded the statement of PW2 and others. He has arrested the accused and took the voluntary statement of the accused and seized the weapon used for the offence. 14. The trial court in S.C.No.59/2009 found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC based upon the evidence of PW1 who is the injured and also sustained injuries as indicated at Ex.P7 wound certificate issued by PW.10 who is the medical officer who subjected the injured to examination and also provided treatment. On appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 9, 10, 11 and 12 coupled with the evidence of PW.1, the trial court held that the prosecution has substantially established the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused who had took up the quarrel with the complainant and also assaulted him with means of MO.3 sickle and found guilty for the said offences, and held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC as the said offence is a greater offence but for the remaining offences under Sections 504, 326 and 506 no separate sentence has been held by the trial court. The same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Government Pleader for the State whereas the trial court held conviction against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- payable to the PW1 injured victim. 15. The same has been disputed in this appeal by the appellant by urging various grounds. In one breath it is projected by the prosecution that the accused assaulted the victim with MO.3 sickle and in another breath it reveals that accused used a talwar. There is variation regarding the usage of weapon as to which weapon is used, whether it is a sickle or a talwar. The doctor who has issued the opinion as per Ex.P8 for having subjected to examination the deadly weapon of sickle has opined that the injuries are caused with MO.3 sickle. But as per the evidence of PW.11 Scientific Officer it is a talwar. 16. The doctor who has issued the opinion as per Ex.P8 for having subjected to examination the deadly weapon of sickle has opined that the injuries are caused with MO.3 sickle. But as per the evidence of PW.11 Scientific Officer it is a talwar. 16. But, the prosecution has projected the entire evidence on record in order to establish the guilt against the accused and the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC. But the trial court sentenced the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and ordered to pay rigorous imprisonment for three years and for payment of compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/to the PW1 injured. There is some perversity found in the impugned judgment regarding the offence held against the accused under Section 307 of IPC and therefore this needs an intervention at the hands of this Court. 17. Keeping in view the evidence of PW1 in so far as the complaint at Ex.P1 said to have been filed by him, evidence of PW.10 medical officer who has examined the injured and who issued the wound certificate and the opinion regarding the usage of weapon and the evidence of PW11 Scientific Officer who has also examined the weapon, even though the trial court has framed the charge for the offences under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC it has sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC merely because it is a greater offence. 18. But, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, since there is some controversy regarding the usage of weapon as to whether it is a sickle or talwar. In this case it is relevant to state that on receipt of the charge sheet by the committal court the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC. Subsequently, prosecution proceeded with the case to prove the guilt of the accused by placing evidence of PWs. 1 to 12 and also got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P13. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused sickle which was used for the offence has been seized and marked as MO.3. Subsequently, prosecution proceeded with the case to prove the guilt of the accused by placing evidence of PWs. 1 to 12 and also got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P13. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused sickle which was used for the offence has been seized and marked as MO.3. But the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 326, 307 and 506 of IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 19. On going through the entire material evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the judgment passed by the trial court needs to be intervened and the judgment is required to be modified in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Though charge sheet laid against the accused for committing the alleged offences, there is no enough material placed by the prosecution to hold the accused guilty of Section 307 of IPC. At the most he can be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. 20. For one more reason also the judgment passed by the trial court requires modification. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of SHYAM SHARMA (supra) squarely applies to the case on hand also. In that case also the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC has been converted into Section 324 of IPC and the accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC in the said case. Therefore, in the case on hand also, taking into consideration of the evidence on record, the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC requires to be converted into Section 326 of IPC. 21. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, so also the injuries inflicted on the person of the injured and taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence passed by the trial court needs to be modified. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed by this court is answered by modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K. in S.C.No.59/2009. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed by this court is answered by modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K. in S.C.No.59/2009. The accused-appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. The accused-appellant was in judicial custody during the period of trial for a period of 20 days and the same is termed as the service of sentence. However, the sentence regarding payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same shall be termed as sentence to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. As the victim has sustained grievous injuries and also he being a poor man rolling beedi and he has spent huge amount for taking treatment, out of the said fine amount, in a sum of Rs.45,000/shall be payable to PW1 victim as compensation and remaining Rs.5,000/- shall be defrayed to the prosecution. The compensation amount has to be deposited by the accused before the trial court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the compensation amount, the trial court shall disburse an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the injured victim immediately. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The bail bond shall stand cancelled.