JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No.70/2009 on the file of the Special (Sessions Judge), Bagalkot, dated 2/8/2010 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant-Hasanappa Kashappa Chalawadi who has been examined as PW-1 gave a written complaint to PW-16, the Police Sub Inspector of the complaint police station on 16/5/2009 in the night that while he was going to his house passing in front of the house of Dayanand Nadagouda and at that time, he saw the Mahantesh Patil, and while proceedings he enquired him whether he is going to celebrate the win of BJP party at Bagalkot election, by burning the crackers. At that time, the accused who was also present along with him objected to the same and abused him in a filthylanguage taking his caste name and also the accused taking the wooden stick, which is of agricultural implement assaulted the complainant. When the said incident was witnessed by Mahantesh Patil and Sharanappagouda Patil, they came to rescue the complainant and this accused bitten the Mahantesh Patil on his right thumb and also on the right ear of Sharanappagouda. When the hue and cry was taken place, the other people also gathered in the place of incident and pacified the galata. The accused while going caused the life threat and hence, on receipt of the complaint, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who continued the investigation and filed charge sheet for all the offences. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined PWs.-1 to 16 and also relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P16(a) and also relied upon the material object wooden stick as M.O.1. The Court below after hearing both the parties convicted the accused for all the offences except offence under Section 5060 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment and to pay fine. The Court below after hearing both the parties convicted the accused for all the offences except offence under Section 5060 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment and to pay fine. The main contention of the appellant in this appeal is that the Court below failed to appreciate the lot of material contradictions between the evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 and in fact, the father of PW-4 who has been examined as PW-5 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to the prosecution, PW-5 is the eye witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution and PW- 3 is also did not support of the case of the prosecution who is also eye witnesses. According to the prosecution, he was not in the village on the date of the alleged incident. PWs.- 7, 8 and 9 have turned hostile and who allegedly are an eye witnesses to the incident. The Court below only considering the evidence of interested persons and in the absence of independent eye witnesses committed an error in convicting the accused. The medical evidence of PW-14 shows that injuries sustained by PW1 is grievous in nature and injuries caused by PWs.4 and 5 are simple in nature and categorically admitted that the said injuries can be caused if a person fallen on a sharp stone and when these material are available, the Court below erroneously convicted the appellant-accused. The other panch witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and the very conviction and sentence is otherwise improper and it requires the interference of this Court and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. 4. Though the appellant represented through counsel and filed appeal through counsel the counsel did not chose to appear in spite of an opportunity is given and in the previous occasion also he took the time, but when the matter is listed for final hearing, did not choose to appear. Junior counsel seeks time again and the said request is turned down since the appeal is of the year 2010 and after hearing the arguments of the learned HCGP, reserved for the judgment. 5. Junior counsel seeks time again and the said request is turned down since the appeal is of the year 2010 and after hearing the arguments of the learned HCGP, reserved for the judgment. 5. Having heard the arguments of the learned HCGP and also on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal memo, this Court has to examine as to whether the Court below has erred in convicting the accused for the offences invoked against him and requires interference of this Court. 6. Before discussing the evidence of the prosecution, I wouldl ike to make a mention of the contents of the complaint. On perusal of the complaint which marked as Ex.P1, the injured who has been examined as PW1 in the complaint stated that on 16/5/2009, when he was returning to his house, he was passing infront of the house of Dayanand Nadagouda and at that time he found Mahantesh Patil and Sharanappa Patil, who were sitting in front of the house and referring the said Mahantesh Patil, he asked BJP candidate is elected in the election and whether they are going to burst the crackers in celebration of winning in the election. At that time, this accused who was present in the spot, he started abusing him, taking his caste name and when he questioned, why he is abusing him and again he abused by taking his caste name and he took the wooden stick and assaulted on his head and when he started screaming, Mahantesh Patil and Sarnappagouda Patil came to rescue him and he did not spare them also and he assaulted with hand and also bitten the right thumb of Mahantesh Patil and also the right ear of Sharanappagouda Patil and when the same was witnessed by the vil lagers Dayanand Vishwanath Nadagoudar and Sharanappa Shivappa Pujari came and rescued and pacified the galata. This incident was taken place at 8.30 p.m. and immediately he went to police station and police told him to take the treatment since the blood was oozing and police went and collected the complaint in the hospitalit self and case has been registered. 7. The Court below after perusing the charge sheet materials, framed the charges in respect of the respective offence and prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 16. 7. The Court below after perusing the charge sheet materials, framed the charges in respect of the respective offence and prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 16. Out of PWs.1-16, PWs-1, 4 and 5 are the injured and other witnesses are eye witnesses and panch witnesses and also the Doctor who has treated the injured persons and the accused were also examined. The main contention of the appellant-accused is that there are material contradictions, particularly, in the evidence of PWs-1, 4 and 5 and the Court below failed to appreciate the material contradictions. In the ground of appeal, the appellant has contended that panch witnesses have not supported and further contended that PW-5 who is none other than the father of the PW-4 who has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and PW-5 is the eye witness to the prosecution. On perusal of the records, PW-5 is not an eye witnesses and PW-5 is the injured i.e. Sharanappagouda Patil and in his evidence he categorically says that on hearing the screaming sound when he was in his house, he came out from the house and witnessed the quarrel between the accused and PW-1 and he went there and intervened to pacify the galata. At that time, the accused bitten his right hear with his teeth and also he categorically says that he came to know that incident of galata was taken place with respect to f iring of crackers. Further he says that when he had been to spot already he has bitten the finger of his son and also assaulted the complainant and material discloses that he is also victim. The other contention of the appellant is that PWs-7, 8 and 9 have turned hostile and they have cited as eye witnesses and they have not supported and only based on the interested witnesses statement, the Court below convicted the appellant. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, he reiterated the averments of the complaint in his oral evidence and in the cross examination of PW-1, except eliciting with regard to elected candidate is belongs to the BJP party and eliciting that the accused is in order to live his livelihood he is staying in Bangalore, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The statement was made that at the time of the incident, he was not in the village and the same was denied and categorically says that he was in the village itself. Further he admits that he was alone and he came to make galata with him and further admits that there are other houses surrounding in the house where the incident was taken place. He has explained that he assaulted with stick on his head. He further says that incident was taken place for about 15 to 20 minutes when he started to assault Mahantesh Patil and Sharanappa Patil came to spot and for them also he bitten on thumb and ear. A suggestion was made in the cross examination that, accused was sitting in front the house of Hanumanth Poojari and at that time, Mahantesh Patil, Dayanand, Sharanayya, Sharanappaguoda all joined together for firing the crackers and thrown the same on the accused and when he questioned, all of them assaulted the accused and the suggestion is denied. PW-2, who pacify the galata in one breath he says that he witnessed the incident of assault and in another breath he says that he came to know later on that the accused assaulted and bitten PWs.4 and 5. The Court below has rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW- 2 since there is discrepancy in his evidence. Further, PW-4 who is the another injured also reiterated the incident of assault made against PW-1 on his head and also biting his right hand thumb and also biting the ear of Sharanappagouda Patil and in the cross examination, it is suggested that blood stains are spread on his cloth, but, police did not seized the same, but, he has shown the same and the very suggestion itself shows that the incident was taken place. The defence counsel himself suggest that the cloth of PW-4 stained with blood and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW-4 to disbelieve the evidence of PW- 4. PW-5 also who has sustained injury to his ear, he reiterated the same and to certain extent, he was treated as hostile. The defence counsel himself suggest that the cloth of PW-4 stained with blood and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW-4 to disbelieve the evidence of PW- 4. PW-5 also who has sustained injury to his ear, he reiterated the same and to certain extent, he was treated as hostile. Only with regard to assaulting of PW-1 and biting the thumb of his son since he categoricaly says that when he went to spot already incident was taken place and in the cross examination of PW-5 a suggestion was made that the complainant Mahantesh Patil and Dayanand Nadagoudar were assaulting the accused and Mahantesh i.e. his son tried to turtle him and in order to take away the life of accused, PW-1 squeezed the testicles and all these suggestions are denied. It is proper to discuss the evidence of PW-14. PW14 is the doctor who treated the injured persons on the same day and in his evidence he states with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the respective witnesses i.e. PWs.1, 4 and 5 and also marked Exs.P.13, 14, 15 wound certificates of the respective witnesses and also specifically deposed that the injury on PW-1 could be caused by using of M.O.1. No doubt in the cross examination of PW-1, it is elicited that nature of injuries sustained by PW- 1 may occur if any person falls on the sharp edged stone. But, in respect of the witnesses PW-4 and 5, they categorically say that those type of injuries could be only in case of biting and hence, the evidence of prosecution substantiate with regard to the nature of injuries and injuries sustained by PWs-1, 4 and 5. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW-16, the police has received the information and went and collected the complaint in terms of Ex.P1 and registered the case. The other witnesses PW-10 who is the scribe of the complaint and he identifies the signatures as Ex.P1(a) to (c) that he lodged the complaint. No doubt the other witnesses who are there at the most to pacify the galata were not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. It is made to note that the injured witnesses themselves have given the evidence and there is no any material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 4 and 5 regarding incident. No doubt the other witnesses who are there at the most to pacify the galata were not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. It is made to note that the injured witnesses themselves have given the evidence and there is no any material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 4 and 5 regarding incident. Only contradictions is PW-5 states that he came to spot after hearing the screaming sound and at that time already accused assaulted PWs.1 and 4 and the same did not take away the case of the prosecution and PW-5 who is a person who came to spot and tried to pacify the galata and he was also not spared by the accused and he had bitten the right ear of PW-5 and in the absence of any material contradictions and also of the witnesses PWs.1, 4 and 5 have explained the sequences how the incident was taken place and the same is also corroborate with the evidence of PW-14. It is evident from the records that the accused also went to hospital in the same day night at around 3.00am and the doctor did not notice any injury on him and through out the defence the accused took the contention that he was subjected to assault by PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 and also one Dayananda and the said suggestion has categorically denied and there is no any material before the Court to show that accused was subjected to assault and the Court below while appreciating the evidence available on record, has given anxious consideration with regard to the evidence of PWs-1, 4 and 5 and also the medical evidence which corroborates the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5. 9. 9. Having considered the evidence of the Doctor who has been examined as PW-14 and also the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 coupled with the evidence of I.O. who has been examined as PW-16, who has received the complaint and registered the case and investigated the matter in part, I do not find any irregularities or error committed by the Court below in appreciating the evidence in coming to the conclusion that the accused only assaulted with wooden stick and also bitten PWs.4 and 5 and there is no any force in the contention of the appellant that the Court below has committed an error in convicting the accused in spite of material contradictions and I did not find any such material contradictions and otherwise, the defence is contrary to each other and the same is also observed by the Court below and that the defence was taken by cross examining of PW-1 that the accused was not in town and on that day. But in other breath the defence was taken while cross examining PW-1, PW-4 and 5, the complainant and others have assaulted the appellant and these are the material contradictions of the defence, which was also noticed by the court below. 10. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence including the wound certificates and coupled with medical evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the Court below in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence alleged against him. 11. However, it is noticed by this Court that the Court below convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 and I did not find any material with regard to the ingredients of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and like lihood of causing death by act of the accused is missing, and hence, the Court below failed to appreciate the ingredients under Section 326 of IPC and no doubt, the injured persons have sustained injury and the weapon of wooden stick has been used for assaulting and also he bite PWs.4 and 5 in causing the injuries. At the most it attracts Sections 324 and 323 of IPC and hence, I am of the opinion that convicting of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 requires to be set aside and punishment has to be imposed to the other offences. 12. At the most it attracts Sections 324 and 323 of IPC and hence, I am of the opinion that convicting of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 requires to be set aside and punishment has to be imposed to the other offences. 12. The question that remains is with regard to the sentence, when this Court found the material with regard to Sections 323, 324 of IPC, since the accused assaulted with wooden stick and caused simple injury to PW-1 and bitten the ear and the thumb of PWs.4 and 5, imprisonment or description which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Fine is also not compulsory but sentence is compulsory extending to three years and no minimum sentence and when such being the case, this Court has to take note of the circumstances under which the incident was taken place. 13. On perusal of the material available on record, I do not find any ill-will or any intention to commit the of fence and also there was no any motive for causing the injury and incident was taken place when the complainant asked about the bursting of crackers, suddenly, incident taken place. hence, it is appropriate to modify the sentence having taken note of the severity of the punishment imposed by the Court below. In view of the discussions made above, I modify the sentence in respect of offence, it is appropriate to impose sentence of simple imprisonment. 14. On perusal of the evidence, PW-1 has specifically deposed that the accused abused him by taking his caste name with an intent to insult him and PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 in their evidence also have deposed that he uttered the word taking the name of the cast that too in the presence of public. I do not f ind any material to come to a conclusion that the accused did not abuse him without taking the name of the caste and when the evidence corroborates, the allegations made in the charge sheet that too in support of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the Court below in respect of said offence. 15. 15. I would like to quote the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Crl.A.No.208/2019 arising out of SLP (Crl ) No.2328/2015, between State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vikram Das and in this judgment the Apex Court referring the provision of Section 3(1) (x) of the 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holds that High Court cannot reduce the sentence contemplated by the statute. In view of the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and also in State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora it was held that to convict offenders under the Prevention of Corruption Act and also Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, held that the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence. 16. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court dated 08/2/2019 in SLP (Crl ) No.2328/2015, wherein it is held that High Court could not award sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the statute. 17. In view of the judgments referred above and also taking into note of gravity of the offence, insofar as Section 3(1) (x) of the 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am of the opinion that minimum sentence of six months is very apt. Taking into consideration, the circumstances under which the incident has taken place and causing insult and taking caste name in the public view, I award the following sentence, insofar as the punishment under special enactment is concerned. 18. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is set aside. The sentence for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is modified, appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months with the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence for the offence under Section 323 of IPC is modified. The appellant-accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The sentence for the offence under Section 323 of IPC is modified. The appellant-accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The sentence for the offence under Section 504 of IPC is modified, the appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The sentence for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo minimum simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant is entitle benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. to set off for the period already undergone imprisonment, if he is in custody. Out of the fine amount, PW-1 is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,000/-, PW-4 is entitled for Rs. 3,000/- and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to PW-5 and the remaining amount should go to the State. The sentence shall run concurrently.