JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant against the judgment dated 04.07.2011 made in Criminal Appeal No.04/2008 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.61/2007 on 27.12.2007. The brief facts the case are that: 2. The accused suspected the complainant-Bhimanagouda Biradar that he is having illicit relationship with his wife. In that background on 19.01.2006 at about 04.00 a.m. when the complainant was going towards his land to irrigate the wheat crop in his land, the accused persons came on the way. They dragged the complainant towards the house of Accused No.1 and all the accused persons with common intention have wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant with club, hands and sticks. They tied the complainant with rope and abused him in filthy language. Thereby it is alleged that accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 342, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. On the basis of complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered the case in Rural P.S. Crime No.14/2006 for the offences stated supra. After taking the cognizance the summons were issued to the accused persons. The accused persons appeared before the Court and released on bail. 3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PW.1 to 7 witnesses were examined and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to 58. No defense was made nor produced any documents except production of M.Os.1 and 2 club and rope respectively. 4. The learned JMFC Court-II Bijapur, after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that, prosecution proved beyond the reasonable doubt that on 19.01.2006 at about 04.00 a.m. in Aliyabad village, in front of the house of Accused No.1, the accused persons wrongfully confined Bhimanagouda Biradar by tying him with ropes and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution proved that on the date, time and place above mentioned the accused persons voluntarily assaulted Bhimanagouda Biradar with sticks, voluntarily causing simple injuries to him and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution proved that on the date, time and place above mentioned the accused persons voluntarily assaulted Bhimanagouda Biradar with sticks, voluntarily causing simple injuries to him and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution failed to prove that, on the date, time and place above mentioned the accused persons without there being any provocation abused Bhimanagouda Biradar in filthy language and derogatory language, provoking him to break public peace and insulted him and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, trial Court held that accused persons are found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3 from the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The trial court passed order of sentence that the accused persons undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. the accused persons shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant towards injuries and medical expenses sustained by him. 5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction sentence order the accused persons filed Criminal Appeal before the I. Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The Lower Appellate Court after hearing both the parties after considering the points for determination, has held that appellants have established the grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentenced by the trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal was allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.61/2007 is setaside. The bail bonds of the accused persons stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. Hence, the present appeal came to be filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri.Shivanand.V.Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court acquitting all the accused persons is contrary to both the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the appeal. He would further contend that the complainant has spent medical expenses, which are marked at Ex.P.2 to 54. He has identified the rope and stick used by the accused persons, which are identified as MO1 and MO2. The Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the appeal. He would further contend that the complainant has spent medical expenses, which are marked at Ex.P.2 to 54. He has identified the rope and stick used by the accused persons, which are identified as MO1 and MO2. The said fact is ignored by the Lower Appellate Court. He would further contend that evidence of PW.3Doddakka who is the sister of complainant, being the material witness. She has categorically stated that, she found the accused being tied up with the hands and legs and being assaulted. The PW.7 Dr.Rajsheshri who treated the injured-complainant, has stated that the complainant has sustained abrasions on both knee joints and they were blebs over the left hand palm and there were rope marks on the wrist and ankle joints of both the hands and legs. The said material document is not considered by the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the present appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court restoring the conviction/sentence ordered by the trial Court. 8. Per contra Sri.R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Mohammad Maqbool Ahmed, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court. They strenuously contended that except oral evidence and assertion of complainantPW.1, no other documents were produced to substantiate his case. The Lower Appellate Court after reappreciation the entire material on record, has come to the right conclusion that except evidence of complaint there is no other evidence on record supporting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court was justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the present appeal filed by the complainant. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that on the basis of complaint given by the present appellant, the jurisdictional police have registered the case in Rural P.S. Crime No.14/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 342 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After taking the cognizance of the offences, the summons were issued to the accused persons. 10. After taking the cognizance of the offences, the summons were issued to the accused persons. 10. The prosecution in support of its case has examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to 7 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to 58. 11. PW.1 Bhimanagouda s/o Siddanagouda Biradar, at whose instance the case was registered. The Ex.P.1 is the compliant and Ex.P.5 is the FIR. 12. PW.2 Bhimaraya s/o Shivappa Walikar, is the panch witness to the spot Mahazar at Ex.P.55 Panchanama. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. PW.3 Doddakka w/o Basavaraj Biradar, elder sister of the complainant, she deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. She has stated in the crossexamination that when she came to the spot, there were 1020 persons on the spot and she admitted that no assault taken place in her presence. She is not an eyewitness to the incident. 14. PW.4 Babu Jadhav is hearsay witness to the incident. But he has not supported the case of prosecution. The prosecution treated him as hostile. 15. PW.5 Basavaraj Yallgar/Police Sub Inspector and PW.6 Ashok Kusgal/Head Constable, they deposed about the investigation of the case. PW.5 filed charge sheet after collecting the wound certificate at Ex.P.57. 16. PW.7Dr.Rajashree, Lady Medical Officer, she deposed that on 19.01.2006 she examined the complainant and found three simple injuries and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.57. 17. The complainant examined as PW.1, who stated that on 19.01.2006 when he was going towards his land to irrigate the wheat crop and on the way the accused persons came and dragged him towards the house of Accused No.1. In front of the house of accused No.1, accused tied him with rope and assaulted him with sticks. He deposed that accused have tied his hands and legs. He deposed that Accused No.3 caught hold him tightly, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have tied him with rope and then Accused No.1 assaulted him with stick. In his crossexamination he admitted that, the government passage is situated in the land of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is having a house in his land after some distance from the said government passage. He also admits that there is no connection passage from the said passage to the house of Accused No.1. He admits that there is no electricity connection to the house of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 is having a house in his land after some distance from the said government passage. He also admits that there is no connection passage from the said passage to the house of Accused No.1. He admits that there is no electricity connection to the house of Accused No.1. He further admits that at the time of this incident he was going on government passage. He also admits that a person on government passage cannot see the persons in the house of Accused No.1. He also admits that the inmates of the house of Accused No.1 cannot see the persons going on the passage. 18. He further admits that Accused No.1 is his uncle, but denied that there is a dispute between himself and his uncle. He further admitted that since 34 years the accused persons are suspecting about his illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1. He further admits that in that connection Accused No.1 has objected him. He also admits that the dispute ended in compromise in the police station. It clearly indicates that though complaint was lodged against the Accused No.1 to 3. The evidence of PW.1 clearly indicates that only the Accused No.1 has assaulted with stick. The Accused Nos.2 and 3 are tied with rope. The fact remains that Accused No.1 was suspected about the complainant that he has illicit relation with his wife. Admittedly the accused persons and complainant are relatives. Because of the unfortunate incident happened between the parties and Accused No.1 suspected the complainant about relationship with his wife and complaint. There is ego between the parties and incident has occurred on 19.01.2006. 19. Except the oral testimony of PW.1 that Doddakka Biradar who supported the case of complainant, she is not an eyewitness. She has stated on oath that, no assault taken place in her presence. She is not an eyewitness to the incident. PW.7 Dr.Rajashree issued the wound certificate and stated that complainant has sustained three simple injuries. There is no other evidence on record to support the case of the complainant. The trial Court proceeded to convict the accused persons mainly on the ground that case was registered under the provisions of Sections 324 and 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC was proved and offence registered under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC was not proved. There is no other evidence on record to support the case of the complainant. The trial Court proceeded to convict the accused persons mainly on the ground that case was registered under the provisions of Sections 324 and 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC was proved and offence registered under Section 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC was not proved. The trial Court imposed the punishment to the Accused Nos.1 to 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. In the appeal the Lower Appellate Court exercising his power under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. considering the entire material on record held that, going through the material placed before the Court, the incident alleged to have taken place at 04.00 a.m. in the early morning, no other eyewitness have been examined. Except accused No.1 suspected the complainant, no other incident has taken place between the family. The Lower Appellate Court setaside the conviction sentence order in its entirety. The fact remains that there was quarrel between the Accused No.1 and complainant with regard to illicit relationship with the wife of the Accused No.1 with complainant. But it was ended in compromise before the police station, which is also not in dispute. 20. Considering the material on record, evidence of PW.7Dr.Rajashree that complainant has sustained three simple injuries. The Lower Appellate Court ought to award some compensation in favour of the complainant in order to maintain equity to both the parties. Though the Lower Appellate Court held that except oral testimony no other documents were produced. The fact remains that Accused No.1 somehow suspected the complainant in that connection the incident has taken place on 19.01.2006 and there was no intention to harm the complainant. Only restrict connection that Accused No.1’s wife may warned to the complainant, which resulted in dispute between the parties. Taking into consideration entire material on record and since relationship between the parties and to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court with regard to compensation has to be modified. The judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court with regard to setting-aside the sentence has to be confirmed. 21. Taking into consideration entire material on record and since relationship between the parties and to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court with regard to compensation has to be modified. The judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court with regard to setting-aside the sentence has to be confirmed. 21. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of relationship between the parties and to avoid further dispute between the parties, by exercising the power under the provisions of Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons have to be paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- each to the complainant towards simple injuries sustained by the complainant. 22. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the complainant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court with regard to sentence is confirmed and compensation awarded is modified only to the extent that accused persons shall deposit Rs.7,000/- each before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. On such deposit, the complainant is permitted to withdraw the same. In case accused persons failed to deposit the compensation within a period of two months, the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 23. This Court has hope and trust that, in view of the close relationship between the parties, they shall maintain their cordial relationship and put an end to the quarrel between the families in the interest of justice.