Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1080 (KAR)

Basu Alias Basavaraj v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-15

P.N.DESAI

body2020
JUDGMENT P.N.Desai, J. - This appeal is arising out of judgment of conviction passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur convicting accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and acquitted other accused and also accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 235 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to accused Nos.1 and 3 to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default S.I for 2 months, if the fine amount is deposited by accused Nos.1 and 3. To pay Rs.3,000/- to PW.2 as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as under:- That on 28.05.2009 there was a wrestling competition at village Anjutagi Tq: Indi on the eve of Veerabhadreshwar Jatra Mohastav. It is further case of the prosecution that PW.3 by name Umesh won the wrestling competition, but organizing committee members did not pay the prize amount to the said Umesh. Therefore, PW.2 Subhash asked the committee members as to why they have not given prize amount to PW.3. At that time some altercation took place between them and committee members threatened him to take away his life. It is further case of the prosecution that on the same day during the night hours there was Drama organized by the villagers in the said Jatra Mohatsav. PW.2 Subhash and his father - Shivashankar and others went to see the Drama, near Hanuman Temple in the said village at about 11.30 p.m. At that time accused Nos.1 to 10 came there forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sickle, stick and Talawar and assaulted PW.2-Subhash and his father-Shivashankar with an intention to commit offence and caused simple and grievous injuries to them. The villagers and their relatives who had gathered there rescued them. Then in a ambulance injured were shifted to Hospital. In this regard PW.1- Siddappa lodged a complaint at Zalaki Police Station as per Ex.P.5 on 29.05.2009 at about 02.30 a.m. which is registered as Crime No.71/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 506 (2) read with Section 149 of IPC and FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Court. In this regard PW.1- Siddappa lodged a complaint at Zalaki Police Station as per Ex.P.5 on 29.05.2009 at about 02.30 a.m. which is registered as Crime No.71/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 506 (2) read with Section 149 of IPC and FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, Investigating Officer visited the spot and drawn the seizure panchanama and also collected stick, sickles and Talawar. Then he recorded the statement of the witnesses and also recorded voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 3. Investigating Officer collected the wound certificates from the Hospital. After completion of investigation the PSI of Zalaki Police Station filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 506 (2) read with Section 149 of IPC. 3. The accused are represented by counsel before the JMFC Court, Indi. Then Committal Magistrate furnished the copies of the charge sheet and other documents of police report to accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge, at Bijapur under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The same was registered as S.C.No.182/2011 in the Sessions Court. 4. The accused are on bail. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and posted the case for evidence. 5. Before the Sessions Court the prosecution examined twelve witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 12 and got identified Mos-1 to 9. 6. After recording statements of accused Nos.1 to 10 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and on hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 only under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and acquitted other accused for all the offences and also acquitted accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. After hearing on sentence, the learned Sessions Judge, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 3 to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for 2 months and out of the fine amount Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to PW2 as a compensation. 7. After hearing on sentence, the learned Sessions Judge, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 3 to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for 2 months and out of the fine amount Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to PW2 as a compensation. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence of conviction, accused Nos.1 and 3 preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C on the following grounds. That the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the facts of the case and evidence. That the learned Sessions Judge, has not appreciated the evidence in a right prospective. PW1, PW3, PW8 and PW9 who are the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. There are contradiction and improvements inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further contended, without admitting that the benefit of P.O. Act ought to have been extended by the Trial Court. The sentence imposed is on higher side and the Court below ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the appellants. So, with these main grounds, the appellants have prayed to admit the appeal and set aside the judgment and conviction and acquit the appellants who are the accused Nos.1 and 3 before the Trial Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Perused the evidence and records. 9. The learned counsel for accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 who has lodged a complaint and who is also relative of the injured, by name Siddappaa Shivashankar Achchegar has not supported the prosecution case. PW1, PW3, PW8 and PW9 have not supported the prosecution case. 10. The learned counsel further argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full contradiction, omission and inconsistencies. The other accused are acquitted and the sentence imposed is too high. The learned counsel also argued that the Section 324 of IPC provides for the sentence both imprisonment and fine or fine only. The incident is of the year 2009. The accused, witnesses and injured are wrestlers in the same village. Without admitting the proof of the prosecution, the learned counsel argued that the Court can take a lenient only by imposing the fine. The incident is of the year 2009. The accused, witnesses and injured are wrestlers in the same village. Without admitting the proof of the prosecution, the learned counsel argued that the Court can take a lenient only by imposing the fine. With these main grounds the learned counsel prayed to acquit the accused. 11. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader argued that out of two injured, one injured PW2 Subhash has stated about the injury and assault on him and also stated about the nature of the weapon used by the accused. Of course, the another injured is no more, he died after two years of incident because of some other reasons. The injury certificate corroborates with the theory of the assault and oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. Though some of the witnesses have turned hostile, but other witnesses PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW10 and PW12 have supported the prosecution case. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader further argued that both Investigating Officer and Medical Officer are also examined. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent and convincing reason for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt against accused Nos.1 and 3. Though the prosecution has not preferred appeal, but the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is too meager and a very lenient has been taken, though the weapons used are deadly weapons and there is a severe injury. The learned High Court Government Pleader prays to confirm the sentence and dismiss the appeal. 13. From the above material on record, arguments and evidence the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:- 1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused Nos.1 and 3 voluntarily caused hurt under Section 324 of IPC to PW.2-Subhash and CW5- Shivashankar by mense an instrument of sharp weapons like Talawar and sickle i.e., MO-1 and MO-3? 2) Whether the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge is perverse and not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence in criminal cases and needs interference of this Court?. 14. I have carefully perused evidence of the prosecution. PW.1-Siddappa is the person who is said to have been set the criminal law in motion by lodging the complaint. 2) Whether the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge is perverse and not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence in criminal cases and needs interference of this Court?. 14. I have carefully perused evidence of the prosecution. PW.1-Siddappa is the person who is said to have been set the criminal law in motion by lodging the complaint. He has admitted that injured PW.2- Subhas is his brother and deceased-Shivashankar is his father and others are his relatives. He has not supported the prosecution case, he was cross12 examined by the prosecution. He has admitted his signature on Ex.P.1-complaint, but no explanation is given by him, as to why he has signed on Ex.P.1. So his evidence is fatal to prosecution case. 15. Pw.2-Subhash is the injured person. In his evidence he has stated about the assault on him. He has stated that prior to incident there was a wrestling competition in the village and his brother's son by name Umesh won the said competition. But, accused persons threatened him and refused to give prize money. On the same day at night when he was proceeding to see Drama arranged on the eve of Jatra, accused persons came there and threatened him. He has stated the role of accused Nos.1 and 3 in assaulting them. He has also stated that accused No.1 assaulted him on his right ear and also on his head and vital region. When his father came to rescue him, his father was also assaulted with Talawar. Accused No.3 assaulted him with sickle. Then his brothers who were present there rescued him and took him to Hospital in a ambulance. Thereafter, his brother lodged the complaint to police. Then he was send to BLDE Hospital at Vijayapur. Then he was shifted to Sholapur Hospital. He has identified MOs.1 and 2 are weapons used by accused Nos.1 and 3 for assaulting himself and his father. But he has not given any specific evidence with regard role of other accused or assault by them. Though, cross-examination has been made at length by learned counsel for accused, but nowhere it is suggested that accused No.1 and 3 have not assaulted him. Why he is deposing falsely against accused is not forthcoming. No suggestions were made or denial is made as to why the said witness deposed against accused Nos.1 and 3. Though, cross-examination has been made at length by learned counsel for accused, but nowhere it is suggested that accused No.1 and 3 have not assaulted him. Why he is deposing falsely against accused is not forthcoming. No suggestions were made or denial is made as to why the said witness deposed against accused Nos.1 and 3. Only some suggestions were made that he has not stated before the police some sentences, which is denied by him. 16. So, such denial neither amounts to contradiction or inconsistency. There are no materials contradiction in the evidence of PW.2 regarding role of accused Nos.1 and 3. He has clearly stated about the parts of the body where he was assaulted. Some suggestions were made that at the time of Drama he tried to see the lady artists by peeping through window of room where they were sitting. He has denied it. It is also suggested that he was in a drunken state and he has quarreled with persons gathered in the village. This suggestion was not put to any of the witnesses and there is no basis for it. That itself shows that there was quarrel and he sustained some injuries. PW.2 and his father have sustained injuries. So, there is no basis for the theory suggested by accused side. Absolutely, there is nothing in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence about assault of him and his father by accused Nos.1 and 3. 17. Pw.3-Umesh also not supported the case of the prosecution. He doesn't know any thing about incident and filing of charge sheet against his father and uncle. That itself indicates that this witness and some of his relatives expressed their ignorance about this case as they are all belongs to the same village and family. 18. Pw.4-Krishnappa is another wrestler. He supported the prosecution case. He has stated that PW.3-Umesh won the wrestling, but accused No.1 refused to pay prize money of the said wrestling and threatened to take away the life. He has stated that the incident has taken place in the night and accused assaulted PW.2-Subhas and his father. Though he was also cross-examined, but there is nothing in the crossexamination to disbelieve his evidence. Some suggestions were made, which are not material to the case regarding how many wrestling competition have taken place on that day. He has stated that the incident has taken place in the night and accused assaulted PW.2-Subhas and his father. Though he was also cross-examined, but there is nothing in the crossexamination to disbelieve his evidence. Some suggestions were made, which are not material to the case regarding how many wrestling competition have taken place on that day. Simply, it is suggested that there is no galata between accused No.1 and PW.2. Again suggestion was made that at the time of performance of said Drama, PW.2-Subhash was trying to see the women artists through window, by this act there was galata and PW.2 sustained injuries with stone. Again such defence has no basis at all. He clearly identified M.O.1 the weapon which was with accused No.1 and used to assault PW.2 and father of PW.2 was also assaulted. Though he is the relative of PW.2, but there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence also. 19. The evidence of PW.5-Raju also corroborates the evidence to PWs.2 and PW.4 regarding assault by accused Nos.1 and 3. He has also stated the place where PW.2 sustained injuries and also stated about assault by accused No.3. The evidence regarding assault by other accused is only general and vague one. Though he was also cross-examined at length, but there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence in respect of accused Nos.1 and 3. It was suggested that whether he went to house and brought the weapon to assault accused Nos.1 and 3 who have assaulted PW.2 and his father. But he has stated that he never tried for it. He has stated that there was bleeding injuries on them. He only made galata. Lot of people gathered and police also came to the spot after 5- 10 minutes and then ambulance also came there. No suggestion were made to this witness regarding defence taken by accused that injuries sustained to injured, when he tried see the women artists through window who were sitting in room at Dram theater. No such suggestion is not made to this witness. 20. Pw.6-Bharmanna is also the person from same village. He also supported the prosecution case about the incident. He has specifically stated about the assault by accused No.1 with sword on PW.2-Subhash and CW.5-Shivashakar. He has stated that there was light at the time of incident and he can identify the weapons. 20. Pw.6-Bharmanna is also the person from same village. He also supported the prosecution case about the incident. He has specifically stated about the assault by accused No.1 with sword on PW.2-Subhash and CW.5-Shivashakar. He has stated that there was light at the time of incident and he can identify the weapons. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show that why his evidence should not be believed. No suggestions were made so as to make his evidence doubtful. 21. Pw.7-Channappa also supported the prosecution case and his evidence is also in corroboration with the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. Though cross-examination is made at length by accused, but there is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve his evidence. 22. Pw.8-Babu and PW.9-Siddanagouda who are panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution, but they have admitted their signatures on Exs.P.3-Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.4-Seizure Panchanama. 23. Pw.10-Sahebgouda Patil, the Police Sub Inspector is the investigating officer. He has stated about investigation done by him with regard to recording the statements of witnesses and accused and recovery of weapons conducting the investigation and filing of charge sheet. Though he was also crossexamined at length, but there is nothing in his crossexamination to disbelieve his evidence. 24. Pws.11 and 12 are the Doctors/medical officers who have examined the injured persons and given the wound certificates as per Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. The doctors have clearly mentioned about the injuries sustained by PW.2 and deceased Shivashankar. The medical evidence corroborates the oral evidences about injuries. The Doctors opined that injuries No.1 to 5 can be caused with MO.1. There is nothing in their crossexamination to disbelieve their evidences. 25. Learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no motive and motive is not proved in this case. Regarding motive it is necessary to states the settled principles of law which are as under:- "Motive, which is the emotion that impels a man to do a particular act, need not necessarily be proportionally grave to commit graver crimes. Many murders are committed without any known or prominent motive. Motive, often is not discovered. It is not sound to suggest that no criminal act can be performed unless motive is proved. In some cases, it may be difficult to prove motive by direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances can help in discerning motive. Many murders are committed without any known or prominent motive. Motive, often is not discovered. It is not sound to suggest that no criminal act can be performed unless motive is proved. In some cases, it may be difficult to prove motive by direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances can help in discerning motive. Some times motive proved may be a weak one and not grave enough to commit a grave crime. That by itself is not sufficient to lead to an inference against the prosecution. Clear proof of motive lends additional assurance to other evidence. Absence of motive does not lead to contrary conclusion; but in that case, other evidence has to be closely scrutinized. If positive evidence is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is not of importance. But it is relevant to lend assurance to other evidence regarding crime and fortifying it. Absence of motive does not reflect upon credibility of eyewitnesses. If direct evidence is worthy of credence, question of motive is only academic. Sometimes motive may be clear and proved. Sometimes it may be shrouded in mystery and difficult to locate. Motive is known only to the perpetuator of the crime. Prosecution is not bound to prove motive. Motive or adequacy of motive is not relevant when ocular evidence is reliable. It is generally necessary in the case of circumstantial evidence. Motive is only a link in the evidence. Motive is not significant if direct evidence establishes the charge." 26. But here, why the injured and other witnesses will depose against accused Nos.1 and 3 falsely is not forthcoming. Absolutely, there is no reasons to disbelieve their evidence. On the other hand evidence of injured witnesses and other witnesses corroborates the medical evidence and also the investigating officer evidence corroborates the prosecution witnesses evidence. It is settled principles of law that if some of the witnesses turned hostile, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. Because the Court has to assess the evidence based on the settled principles regarding appreciation the evidence. It is settled principles of law the corroboration is not a rule of law, but it is rule produce. The corroboration needed only if the evidence of injured witnesses suffers from inherent, improbability or they are highly interested. Because the Court has to assess the evidence based on the settled principles regarding appreciation the evidence. It is settled principles of law the corroboration is not a rule of law, but it is rule produce. The corroboration needed only if the evidence of injured witnesses suffers from inherent, improbability or they are highly interested. No suggestions were made to the prosecution witnesses as to why and for what reason they are implicating or deposing against these accused. 27. So, in the light of these principles, if the evidence of prosecution and injured are considered, their evidence itself is sufficient to establish the charge under Section 324 of IPC as their evidence is beyond suspicion. So, motive is not significant in this case. 28. It is necessary to keep in mind that the general guidelines for appreciation of evidence and how the appreciate the evidence. There is no hard and fast rule regarding appreciation of evidence. No evidence should be adjudged adversely, making any other evidence including medical evidence as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. Evidence must be tested for its own inherent inconsistency and inherent probability of that version, consistency with version of other witnesses held to be creditworthy, consistency with undisputed facts, credit-worthiness of witnesses, their performance in the witness box, their power of observation, etc., Then probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into scale. When witnesses are rustic persons, their behavioural patterns, perceptions and habits must be taken into consideration and appreciated. Approaches that are too sophisticated, based on assumptions about human conduct cannot be applied to people accustomed to ways of village, as they may not have keep sense of time. Fringe variations, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narration, and embellishments in nonessential parts cannot militate against veracity of the core of testimony, if there is an impress of truth and conformity to probability in substantial fabric of prosecution story. Discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony. 29. On entire reading of evidences and material placed by the prosecution it is evident that the evidences of prosecution witnesses regarding role of accused Nos.1 and 3 in assaulting PW.2 and his father25 CW.5 is very much clear consistent. The evidence regarding role of other accused is vague and general and the learned Sessions Court has rightly acquitted them. 29. On entire reading of evidences and material placed by the prosecution it is evident that the evidences of prosecution witnesses regarding role of accused Nos.1 and 3 in assaulting PW.2 and his father25 CW.5 is very much clear consistent. The evidence regarding role of other accused is vague and general and the learned Sessions Court has rightly acquitted them. Though the motive is relevant, but it is not a main point for consideration, that itself is not ground to reject the case. On the other hand it is settled principles of law that evidences of injured/witnesses cannot be disbelieved, unless they have any grievance against accused persons. 30. It is evident from the evidence of prosecution witness that there was a wrestling competition and also there is Drama in the evening. It is also evident that the injured-PW.2 sustained injuries and witnesses have clearly stated about assault by accused Nos.2 and 3 with MOs and identified by them. Injured evidence is supported by the witnesses, who were natural witnesses. There was also light and after assault immediately injured persons were taken to Hospital. Absolutely, I have find no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses in this regard. Whatever discrepancy and improvements are there, they are only minor discrepancy and not major contradiction or discrepancy as to material particulars. Since, minor discrepancies are bound to occur they are village people and family member. Therefore, from the evidence placed by the prosecution, it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 and 3 committed offence by assaulting PWs.2-Subhash and deceased-Shivashankar-CW.5 and caused injuries to them. 31. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The learned Sessions Judge has raised proper points for consideration and discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has given reasons for believing the evidence of the prosecution and also he has discussed about the medical evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, has relied upon two judgments reported in the case of State of Karnataka, S.I of Police, Moodabidri PS. Vs. Vishwanatha S. Anchan, (2003) ILR(Kar) 1836 and, in the case of Shivappa and others vs State of Karnataka, (2008) AIR SC 1860 . The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence of injured witnesses, has convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 and rightly acquitted other accused. Vs. Vishwanatha S. Anchan, (2003) ILR(Kar) 1836 and, in the case of Shivappa and others vs State of Karnataka, (2008) AIR SC 1860 . The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence of injured witnesses, has convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 and rightly acquitted other accused. So, I find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction against accused Nos.1 and 3. 32. It is evident that the learned Sessions Judge, has imposed the sentence of six months and also fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Admittedly, Section 324 of IPC provides for imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine or with both. Here admittedly, it appears from the prosecution evidence and materials that the incident has taken place due to wrestling event i.e., committee members refused to give prize Rs.250/- amount to the winner. So, the quarrel in the village is for petty amount and for small reason. But the case is pending against the accused from the year 2009. Of course the conviction order is passed in the year 2013 itself. The Sessions Court registered the case as S.C.No.182/2011 in the year 2011. This appeal is pending from the year 2013 till date. It is also evident that accused are agriculturists and having children. The learned Sessions Judge has taken lenient view to impose the fine amount and to pay that as compensation. Apart from that there was sentence to undergo imprisonment for six months. Looking to the background of accused and period of pending of case as the incident has taken place for the petty prize amount of Rs.200/- and they are from wrestler family, there is no history of any criminal background nor they are antisocial elements. So, keeping in mind the background in which the assault has taken place and as the injuries are simple injuries a lenient view deserves to be taken to give the accused chance to reform themselves. Therefore, offence the imprisonment of six months needs to be altered, as it will be harsh punishment to them. They are all are young agriculturists. They should be give chance to reform and come in the main stream. If they are sentenced to imprisonment there is chance of they being mixed with hardened criminals at Jail and may develop hatredness towards society. 33. The incident has taken place what appears to be a silly reason. They are all are young agriculturists. They should be give chance to reform and come in the main stream. If they are sentenced to imprisonment there is chance of they being mixed with hardened criminals at Jail and may develop hatredness towards society. 33. The incident has taken place what appears to be a silly reason. There are no past records of any cases or criminal background against them. The other accused are acquitted of all the charges. These accused Nos.1 and 3 and other accused are also acquitted of other offences. So, keeping in mind the proportionately of sentence, taking into consideration the background of accused, back ground of incident and their age, occupation and the fine imposed in my consideration the imprisonment sentence will work very harsh against them. The prosecution case was hanging on them from the year 2010. Nearly decades they have undergone agony of pending of criminal cases against them. 34. Under the said circumstances, in my view, imposition of the sentence of imprisonment for six months would not only work harsh, and detrimental to the interest of the family especially the wife and children of the accused who are depended on them, but the said incarceration would also affect the physical health and wellbeing of the appellant. 35. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, in my view, it would be just and proper to sentence the appellants/accused to pay a substantial fine in lieu of physical incarceration. Thus, considering the above circumstances of the case, the context in which the said offence has taken place, the family background of the victim and the accused, the present and future consequences of the punishment on the family of the accused, it would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence of fine is only imposed. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment is altered or modified under Section 386 (1) (b) 3) of Cr.P.C., to one of fine only and imprisonment sentencing imprisonment is set aside. However the fine amount is to be increased to Rs.5,000/- fine amount for each accused and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 05 months. Out of the total fine amount (Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000) Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000/- is to be paid to PW.2-Subhash injured as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. Out of the total fine amount (Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000) Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000/- is to be paid to PW.2-Subhash injured as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants-accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is altered and modified under Section 386 (1( (b) (3) of Cr.P.C., one of fine only, however the fine amount is increased to Rs.5,000/- for each accused and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 05 months. Out of the total fine amount Rs.10,000/-, a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) shall be paid to PW.2-Subhash injured as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Accused shall deposit the fine amount before the Trial Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in default to pay fine amount within aforesaid time, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of five months. Send back the records of the Trial court forthwith.